Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

PRIVATE BILLS [Lords] (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with).

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:

Newbury Corporation Bill [Lords].

Bexhill Corporation Bill [Lords].

Bills to be read a Second time.

St. Mildred's Churchyard Bill [Lords],

Standard Life Assurance Company Bill [Lords],

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

PIG-IRON (IMPORTS).

Mr. HAYDAY: 1.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what quantities of French pig-iron and other Continental pig-iron, respectively, have been imported into this country during the months of January, February, March, April and May for the years 1914, 1924 and 1925, respectively?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): The answer contains a table of figures, and the hon. Member will perhaps allow me to have it circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

The following statement gives the registered imports of pig-iron (not including ferro alloys) into the United Kingdom consigned from France and other European countries in the year 1913, and in each of the months January to May, 1924 and 1925, respectively. Corresponding particulars for the first five months of 1914 are not now available:


Period.
From France.
From other European countries.



Tons.
Tons.


1913 (year)
914
164,278


1924.




January
4,418
8,135


February
10,324
19,848


March
7,259
15,372


April
9,252
22,779


May
9,682
26,809


1925.




January
17,453
7,948


February
11,922
9,891


March
16,877
9,950


April
9,905
11,999


May
11,267
6,402

IRON AND STEEL TRADES.

Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON: 2.
asked the President of the Board of Trade how soon he will be in a position to make any statement as to whether or not an application has been submitted by the iron and steel trades for a protective tariff against the importation of foreign goods?

Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: 11.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether a decision has yet been reached as to the institution under the White Paper of an inquiry into the steel trade?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I would refer the hon. Members to the statement made in the Debate yesterday by the Minister of Labour.

Mr. THOMSON: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether trades which are allied to the iron and steel trade, and which will be affected by any bounty or duty, will be heard before the Research Committee which is inquiring into the question.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The Research Committee will examine all relevant considerations.

Mr. THOMSON: Who is to decide What is relevant?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The Committee.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: What does this prove? If certain trades require to be assisted in this fashion, is it not proof conclusive that the capitalist system is breaking up?

Captain BENN: Is there anything in the pledges given by the Government which in their judgment prevents their granting a duty to steel under the safeguarding scheme?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The Government stand by all their pledges.

Captain BENN: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the question?

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Surely I have a right to get an answer before the hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain Benn).

Mr. SPEAKER: I thought the hon. Member answered his own question.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I want an expression of opinion from the other side.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The answer to the hon. Member's question is in the negative.

Brigadier-General CHARTERIS: 3.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the present unsatisfactory position of the iron and steel industry in this country, the Government will consider the necessity of taking effective steps to secure to this country orders for such of the requirements of India in these commodities as cannot be provided by the Indian factories?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the answer to a similar question given by the Under-Secretary of State for India on the 18th February of last year, of which I am sending him a copy.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a great Indian industrialist was here in the House a few weeks ago, begging of British Members of Parliament and others to invest money in India for the purpose
of producing steel, thereby making it more difficult for British workmen to secure work?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member should put that question down.

LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANIES.

Sir WALTER de FRECE: 8.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his Department will publish information showing, in the light of dividends paid, the relative prosperity of limited liability companies now and in 1913 (assuming they existed in the former period) as a guide to the progress of national industry?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: There are no available figures relating to limited liability companies as a whole. Some interesting information, however, is published quarterly in the "Economist"; and for particulars of recent years I would refer my hon. Friend to the number of that journal published on the 26th April. In respect of the limited liability companies whose accounts are reviewed in the "Economist," the dividend paid in the year ending June, 1914, represented a return of about 5.1 per cent. on the issued preference capital, and of nearly 10.5 per cent. on the issued ordinary capital, while the corresponding figures for the 12 months ending March, 1925, were 5.4 per cent. and 10.0 per cent.

Mr. MONTAGUE: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that the terms of this return really do show the progress or otherwise of national industry?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No; I think it would be extraordinarily difficult to found any argument one way or another upon what is admittedly a very limited set of figures, but as these figures are published by the "Economist," I thought probably my hon. Friend might like to have them.

DUMPING.

Sir W. de FRECE: 13.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his Department has any recent information indicating dumping by foreign countries into this country; and, if so, of what nature?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I have not received any special information of the nature indicated.

COTTON TRADE (SPINDLES EMPLOYED).

Colonel GRETTON: 12.
asked the President of the Board of Trade how many spindles are actually employed in the cotton trade in Great Britain; and what is the number actually employed in the United States of America at the present time?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: It is reported in an American periodical that in April 33,413,000 cotton spindles were "active" in the United States of America. Later information is not at present available. I regret that I am unable to state the number of cotton spindles actually employed in the United Kingdom, but I am informed that in April the spinning industry as a whole was working at about 70 per cent. of productive capacity.

Colonel GRETTON: With regard to the spindles employed in this country, does that mean full time or short time?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: It is taking the corrected figure of 70 per cent. of productive capacity, because short time has to be included. I think that that is really a better figure than anything regarding the number of spindles.

Oral Answers to Questions — CLEARING OFFICE (ENEMY DEBTS).

Mr. BASIL PETO: 4.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what progress is being made in dealing with claims made through the Clearing Office (Enemy Debts) by British merchant seamen in respect of the detention of their ships prior to the declaration of war under Clause 4 of the Annex to Section IV, Part X, of the Treaty of Versailles; whether he is aware that great delay continues in dealing with these cases; whether anything can be done to expedite matters; and whether he can give particulars of the awards made by the arbitrator and the sums, if any, paid over to the claimants?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: In order to expedite the delay which has occurred in the settlement of these claims, a special agreement has recently been concluded with the competent German authorities with a view to effecting a settlement without the necessity of inquiry by an
arbitrator. I am hopeful that this agreement will lead to a satisfactory and speedy settlement of these deserving claims. Under the judgments of the arbitrator, who has now resigned, two awards of £300 and £350, respectively, were made, both of which have been paid in full.

Mr. PETO: Will the right hon. Gentleman reply to the last part of the question, as to whether any claims have actually been paid, and, if so, what is the amount?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I think that is replied to in the second part of the answer.

Mr. PETO: Is it not a fact that in the Enemy Debts Clearing Office there are 1,000 officials employed at a cost of £300,000 a year; and, in view of the very slow procedure which has hitherto taken place, would it not be better to get rid of some of these gentlemen?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The hon. Member has completely misunderstood the position. The Enemy Debts Clearing Office is engaged in a very large number of transactions running into tens of millions of pounds, the great majority of which have been liquidated. The difficulty in this case arises from the objection of the German Government, which they are entitled to take under the Treaty, to meet particular claims. We have now arrived at an arrangement which is, I think, practicable, and which I hope will be expeditious.

Oral Answers to Questions — BAHAMAS INTERNATIONAL TRADING COMPANY.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: 6.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the Bahamas Trust Company, Limited, 14, Regent Street, London, is offering 100,000 £l shares of the Bahamas International Trading Company, Limited, for the purpose, among others, of smuggling wines, spirits, etc., into the United States of America; and whether he will introduce legislation to prevent a company domiciled in this country from carrying on a trade for the purpose of violating the laws of a friendly country?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: As the answer is a very long one, I propose, with the hon. Member's permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

HON. MEMBERS: Read it.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: I would like to put a question to the right hon. Gentleman on one particular point, namely, is he aware that three of the members of the board of this company are declared in the prospectus to be members of the Legislative Assembly who have succeeded in so bringing about a change in the laws as to enable this smuggling to be a success.

HON. MEMBERS: Read the answer.

Mr. SPEAKER: I think the House would prefer that the answer should be read.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I wanted to give the fullest information, and not to detain the House, but if the House desire the answer to be read, I shall comply with that request.
I have seen the offer of sale referred to. I have no power to prohibit a company registered in this country from offering for subscription shares in the Bahamas company referred to, but, as my attention has been drawn to this offer, I think it right to say that, so far as any facts are disclosed on the particulars, it does not appear to be a proposal which should command either confidence or support, and I observe that comments in the Press have already been made in a similar sense.
The question, however, raises several problems with which it is not easy to deal in the space of a Parliamentary answer.
In the first place, the only way in which it would be possible to control issues of capital, which are not contrary to the provisions of the Company Law of this country, would be by a general control of all issues. Such administrative control was found to be very disadvantageous to trade and very difficult to operate fairly. The war-time control was consequently abolished. It would clearly require very strong reasons and a very wide consideration of all the issues involved if this policy were to be reconsidered.
Secondly, the question is involved of what particulars should be required in an offer for save which is not a prospectus.
This is a matter which is being considered by the Committee on amendments of the Companies Act.
Thirdly, the Convention concluded between this country and the United States respecting the regulation of the liquor traffic shows the desire of His Majesty's Government, not to encourage, but rather to put down, this trade.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: I beg to give notice that, at the first opportunity I intend to raise this matter on the Adjournment.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the statement in the prospectus—which I hold in my hand— with reference to the good offices of certain members of the board who are also members of the Legislative Assembly, and who have materially assisted in the making of these new laws; and has he drawn the attention or will he draw the attention of the Governor of the Bahamas to this statement that members of the Legislative Council are acting in this manner?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I should be obliged if the hon. Member would put down any question of that kind to the Colonial Secretary.

Captain BENN: Is any rebate paid to this company on the stores which they ship in respect to duty?

Mr. SPEAKER: Perhaps the Ron. and gallant Member will put that question down to the Treasury.

Oral Answers to Questions — MACHINE GUNS (EXPORT TO RUSSIA).

Captain GARRO-JONES: 7.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether permission was given during 1924 to export any war materials, in particular machine guns, for the use of the Soviet Government in Russia; and, if so, whether he will state what these war materials were and the grounds upon which permission was granted?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: During 1924, 610 machine guns with spare parts and l½ million Prideaux links were exported to the Soviet Government. The necessary licences were issued on the
instructions of the late Government, and I am not in a position to answer for the grounds upon which they were granted.

Captain GARRO-JONES: Has the right hon. Gentleman received any further applications for the export of machine guns to Russia in the last six months?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I should like notice of that question.

Mr. PALING: In view of the fact that the Board of Trade found it possible to let trade of this kind go on, will the right hon. Gentleman see his way clear to encourage the export of agricultural machinery?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I should also like notice of that question.

Captain GARRO-JONES: In view of the fact that 600 machine guns were exported to this Government in 1924, may we have an assurance that no exports of machine guns will be allowed in future for this or any other Government.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I think a question was put to that effect, and the answer was that we had no intention of granting these licences for the export of machine guns.

Oral Answers to Questions — FRENCH ARMY (STRENGTH).

Mr. THURTLE: 15.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the last Report issued by the French War Department; and if he will inform the House what is the present active and reserve strength of the various branches of the Army of the French Republic?

The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Sir Laming Worthington-Evans): I presume the hon. Member refers to the Report of the Finance Commission on the 1925 Budget for the French Army. My attention has been called to this Report. As the information asked for in the second part of the question contains a number of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. THURTLE: Could the right hon. Gentleman tell me simply what is the total strength of the acting Reserve of the French Army?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Yes. I am giving the details in the answer, but the total of the Active is 686,000 and of the Reserve, worked out on a certain basis, which I have explained in the answer, 5,280,000.

Following is the information promised:

The present active and reserve strengths of the French Army are shown in the following table by branches of the Service. In calculating the reserve strengths, a mobilisation affecting 20 classes has been assumed.

Arm of Service.
Active Strength.
Reserve Strength.


Infantry
380,000
2,776,000


Cavalry
55,000
616,000


Artillery
104,000
944,000


Engineers
30,000
280,000


Air Service
40,000
200,000


Intendance and Administrative.
57,000
464,000


War Office, Staff, etc.
10,000
—


Military Schools
10,000
—


Total
686,000
5,280,000

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIAN ARMY (STRENGTH)

Mr. THURTLE: 16.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the statement made to the Russian Soviet Union Congress, on 19th May last, by a representative of the Russian Government to the effect that the total strength of the land forces of the Russian Soviet Republics does not exceed 520,000; and whether the official estimate of his Department has been revised?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I have seen a statement in the Press that the Army of the Russian Soviet Republics is reported to have been reduced to 562,000 men. This total, however, omits a large number of formations which are maintained by conscription, and are embodied for training during eight months in the year. I see no reason at present to revise the estimate which I have given in answer to previous questions on this subject.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

ROYAL ARMY SERVICE CORPS (CLEANERS).

Mr. ROBINSON: 18.
asked the Secretary of State for War what was the rate of pay of soldiers of the Royal Army Service Corps, classified as cleaners, on the 27th May, 1925; what will be the rate payable at the conclusion of their current engagement; whether there have been other reductions in the rates of pay of men in the Army since the 1st January this year; and, if so, what is the nature of the reductions and the number of men affected?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Captain Douglas King): Up to the 27th May, 1925, cleaners, Royal Army Service Corps, were classified as tradesmen in Trade Group E, of which the rate of pay is 3s., rising to 4s. after two years' service. From that date they ceased to be classified as tradesmen, and the pay of a cleaner is now the normal private's rate of 2s. 9d., rising to 3s. 6d. after two years' service. Men who were mustered as cleaners on the 27th May, 1925, retain their right to the Group F. trade rate until the termination of their current engagement; on entering upon a new engagement, if still employed as cleaners, they can only draw the normal rates of pay. As regards other reductions since January, 1925, there has been the reclassification of motor drivers and drivers of steam lorries and tractors from Trade Group C to Group E; I would refer the hon. Member to Army Order 213 of 1925 for details. The number of cleaners is about 350, and the number of motor drivers, etc., is about 5,000.

MILITARY MANŒUVRES.

Sir W. de FRECE: 20.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware of the desire of the health and seaside resorts of the country that the date of the military manœuvres should be announced each year as early as possible; and whether he can agree to this course?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I am not aware of any failure to give early notice to the localities in which military manœuvres and training are to be held1 Notice of the area and period of this year's manœuvres was given in March,
when the draft Order applying the provisions of the Military Manœuvres Act was published. The dates and places of the Territorial Army training were published with the Army Orders in April.

Mr. MARDY JONES: Will the right hon. Gentleman say that there will be no repetition of what happened before, when farmers who lent their horses out for manœuvres were done out of their money? I put a question some time ago about it.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Yes, and I answered it then.

Mr. JONES: But has the right hon. Gentleman taken precautions to see that it is not repeated? A large number of these farmers have been done out of the money which has been raised from the taxpayers of this country.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I cannot allow that to pass. That is not a fair statement, and it is quite impossible for me to answer, as a supplementary question, a question which I have already answered two or three months ago.

Oral Answers to Questions — AMERICAN FILM (TERRITORIAL TROOPS ESCORT).

Sir ALFRED BUTT: 19.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the fact that upon the arrival of the "Berengaria" at Southampton on Wednesday last a detachment of the Hampshire Heavy Artillery Territorials and a band were employed to act as a guard of honour and play "The British Grenadiers" in order to welcome an American who brought over a film to this country; that later the band and 50 of the soldiers accompanied the American and his film to London and escorted the film through the crowded streets to Wardour Street, Soho; and will he state whether this is permissible under the Army Regulations and take steps to prevent a recurrence of the possibility of any portion of His Majesty's Forces being used to advertise the importation of American films into this country?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I would refer the hon. Member to the statement which I made yesterday in answer to
questions by the hon. Members for Cardiff South (Captain A Evans) and Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood).

Major HORE-BELISHA: Can the right hon. Gentleman now answer the question I put to him yesterday in regard to the film which was actually escorted, as to whether the Government have any power to prevent it being shown on the screen?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: That does not arise out of the question. I am asked about a totally different film.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

RENT COMMISSION.

Mr. STEPHEN: 21.
asked the Secretary for; Scotland whether he intends to introduce legislation this Session to carry out the recommendations of the Rent Commission which recently sat in Scotland?

The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Sir John Gilmour): I regret that I am not yet in a position to add anything to the answer which I gave to the similar question put by the hon. Member last Tuesday.

Mr. STEPHEN: Can the Minister not tell us whether he is intending to introduce legislation this Session?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I hope to be able to make an announcement very shortly.

ALLOTMENTS.

Mr. STEPHEN: 22.
asked the Secretary for Scotland what steps, if any, he intends to take to encourage and assist allotment holders in Scotland; and whether it is his intention to introduce legislation this Session in this connection?

Sir J. GILMOUR: As I informed the Scottish National Union of Allotment Holders after a deputation which I received in March, I am prepared to consider any proposals which may be put forward by the allotment holders or by local authorities or others with the object of assisting the development of allotments other than the proposed utilisation of moneys from the Agriculture (Scotland) Fund for the purchase of land for allotments. Neither the local authorities nor the allotment holders have hitherto informed me that they desire the application to Scotland of any of the main proposals of the Bill which passed
this House on Friday last. In the circumstances, I am not in a position to make any statement with regard to prospective legislation at present.

Mr. STEPHEN: Is the Minister aware that allotment holders and the Corporations of Glasgow and Edinburgh understood that, since Conservative, Liberal, and Labour Members of this House representing Scotland were alike backing the Bill that was brought forward, there would be no difficulty in regard to its passing?

Sir J. GILMOUR: If the hon. Member refers to the Bill of the hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain Benn), I have already explained to my hon. Friend that I cannot agree to that.

Captain BENN: Could the right hon. Gentleman say in a word why he objects to the Bill?

HOUSING.

Mr. STEPHEN: 23.
asked the Secretary for Scotland how many houses have been built in Scotland under the 1923 Housing Act; how many under the 1924 Housing Act; and how many of these in each case have been built in Glasgow?

Sir J. GILMOUR: 3,938 houses have been built in Scotland under the Act of 1923, of which 934 were built in Glasgow. 75 houses have been built under the Act of 1924, of which none were built in Glasgow.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Can the right hon. Gentleman state if the reason why there have been none under the 1924 Act is that his Department held up the plans in Edinburgh for schemes under that Act?

Sir J. GILMOUR: No. There is no foundation for such a statement.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Is it not a fact that the Glasgow Corporation approached his Department in Edinburgh, and that as the officials were on Holidays they could not get any answer, and is there anything further being done with these plans that were then held up?

Sir J. GILMOUR: No. To say that there was anybody on holiday and that anything was held up by my office is perfectly incorrect.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Is it not a fact that the Glasgow Corporation officials ap-
proached his Department during the Recess, that these plans were held up because the officials at the office in Edinburgh could not say "Yes" or "No" to the Glasgow Corporation, if there have been certain approachments made to him since, and what are the results of those approachments?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member should put a question on the Paper.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I beg to give notice that I intend at the first opportunity to raise this question on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY.

REPARATION COAL EXPORTED

Mr. W. BAKER: 27.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether he will give the figures showing the volume of reparation coal

TABLE I.


Monthly quantities of coal (including coke and lignite) received by France, Italy, Belgium and Luxemburg on Reparation Account between September 1st, 1919, when deliveries began and April 30th, 1925.


Tons of coal (including lignite counted ton per ton and coke converted into terms of coal in the ratio of 3:4 prescribed by the Treaty).


—
France.
Italy.
Belgium.
Luxemburg.
Total.


1919.







September
…
…
…
380,664
—
—
—
380,664


October
…
…
…
557,586
46,598
—
—
604,184


November
…
…
…
683,985
40,594
—
—
724,579


December
…
…
…
706,853
20,221
—
—
727,074


1920.







January
…
…
…
510,503
25,934
—
—
536,437


February
…
…
…
630,780
24,941
—
—
655,721


March
…
…
…
647,129
40,238
—
—
687,367


April
…
…
…
670,618
57,650
15,100
—
743,368


May
…
…
…
950,736
88,553
84,123
—
1,123,412


June
…
…
…
863,819
128,508
95,679
—
1,088,006


July
…
…
…
973,947
177,539
103,956
—
1,255,442


August
…
…
…
1,417,756
170,090
165,192
89,333
1,842,301


September
…
…
…
1,460,245
169,132
203,234
98,666
1,931,277


October
…
…
…
1,525,707
191,921
270,091
126,883
2,114,602


November
…
…
…
1,152,139
247,740
194,880
134,064
1,728,823


December
…
…
…
1,123,557
199,187
273,277
145,605
1,741,626


1921.







January
…
…
…
993,115
192,741
272,553
133,170
1,591,589


February
…
…
…
1,088,021
225,243
286,674
158,145
1,758,083


March
…
…
…
967,738
286,313
235,168
44,371
1,533,590


April
…
…
…
900,400
276,065
258,550
106,900
1,541,915


May
…
…
…
841,066
206,606
249,839
127,534
1,425,045


June
…
…
…
892,544
188,101
249,862
140,193
1,470,700


July
…
…
…
725,631
253,478
209,200
106,415
1,294,724

exported, month by month, to the various countries concerned; whether any of this coal has been re-exported in competition with British coal; and, if so, whether he will state the prices at which such re-exports have taken place?

Colonel LANE-FOX: As the answer contains numerous figures, I am circulating it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

The figures of monthly deliveries of coal on reparation account are given below. As regards the second and third parts of the hon. Member's question, I have no information to the effect that any of this coal has been re-exported. I would add that an undertaking to prevent such re-exportation as far as possible, except by agreement between the Transfer Committee, acting unanimously, and the German Government, was given by the Allied Governments concerned in the London Agreement of August, 1924.

—
France.
Italy.
Belgium.
Luxemburg.
Total.


1921.







August
…
…
…
860,424
280,552
224,142
108,805
1,473,923


September
…
…
…
913,273
269,386
219,809
160,388
1,562,856


October
…
…
…
972,850
261,844
233,238
157,747
1,625,689


November
…
…
…
856,313
210,451
215,623
135,582
1,417,969


December
…
…
…
785,430
193,389
196,589
125,851
1,301,259


1922.







January
…
…
…
1,062,182
199,743
230,175
180,111
1,672,211


February
…
…
…
732,127
128,603
226,158
117,224
1,204,112


March
…
…
…
1,026,078
240,416
316,497
158,685
1,741,676


April
…
…
…
948,523
239,342
254,084
158,350
1,600,299


May
…
…
…
1,096,692
287,868
315,707
159,390
1,859,657


June
…
…
…
847,694
279,366
243,350
158,827
1,529,237


July
…
…
…
866,197
183,325
264,105
156,768
1,470,032


August
…
…
…
749,267
106,737
253,047
123,567
1,232,687


September
…
…
…
912,998
218,084
212,443
111,000
1,454,525


October
…
…
…
920,705
214,101
232,250
110,527
1,477,583


November
…
…
…
874,214
197,116
203,397
146,813
1,421,540


December
…
…
…
838,720
205,462
211,274
144,842
1,400,298


1923.







January
…
…
…
483,690
177,166
71,674
63,038
795,568


February
…
…
…
22,711
89,916
—
—
112,627


March
…
…
…
9,778
258,577
—
—
267,355


April
…
…
…
4,473
206,510
—
—
210,983


May
…
…
…
1,927
114,790
—
—
116,717


June
…
…
…
—
71,465
—
—
71,465


July
…
…
…
—
46,491
—
—
46,491


August
…
…
…
—
74,122
—
—
74,122


September
…
…
…
—
127,393
—
—
127,393


October
…
…
…
—
203,029
—
—
203,029


November
…
…
…
—
106,722
—
—
106,722


December
…
…
…
—
42,109
—
—
42,109


1924.







January
…
…
…
—
3,497
—
—
3,497


February
…
…
…
—
—
—
—
—


March
…
…
…
—
—
—
—
—


April
…
…
…
—
—
—
—
—


May
…
…
…
—
—
—
—
—


June
…
…
…
—
—
—
—
—


July
…
…
…
—
—
—
—
—


August
…
…
…
—
—
—
—
—


September
…
…
…
975,651
429,259
404,899
121,672
1,931,481


October
…
…
…
883,333
346,823
351,796
69,796
1,651,748


November
…
…
…
424,238
88,325
208,672
61,835
783,070


December
…
…
…
723,089
222,456
326,537
98,647
1,370,729


1925.







January
…
…
…
755,140
298,582
213,185
91,696
1,358,603


February
…
…
…
778,574
114,265
245,899
75,847
1,214,585


March
…
…
…
799,112
123,832
257,307
2,462
1,182,713


April
…
…
…
709,595
135,264
249,060
—
1,093,919


NOTE.—(1) The figures given above do not include the quantities obtained otherwise than through the intermediary of the Reparation Commission by the action of the Powers occupying the Ruhr. An estimate of these quantities (which have not as yet been officially reported to the Reparation Commission by the Powers concerned) is given in a separate table.


(2) The figures are not in all cases final and should be regarded as subject to minor adjustments.

TABLE II.


Estimate of the monthly tonnage of coal obtained otherwise than through the Reparation Commission by the action of the Powers occupying the Ruhr.


Tons of Coal (including Lignite counted ton per ton and Coke converted into terms of Coal in the ratio of 3: 4 prescribed by the Treaty).


—
France.
Italy.
Belgium.
Luxemburg.
Total.


1923.







January
…
…
…
740
—
4,829
—
5,569


February
…
…
…
45,309
—
15,661
11,937
72,907


March
…
…
…
62,031
—
11,923
—
73,954


April
…
…
…
225,111
—
50,590
10,714
286,415


May
…
…
…
370,525
—
124,093
26,962
520,580


June
…
…
…
465,899
—
179,946
59,939
705,784


July
…
…
…
335,851
—
161,805
73,007
663,645


August
…
…
…
341,468
—
138,570
50,007
530,045


September
…
…
…
342,168
—
180,131
25,183
547,482


October
…
…
…
368,923
—
168,180
24,196
561,299


November
…
…
…
588,381
—
201,225
53,365
842,972


December
…
…
…
619,227
2,067
342,173
94,940
1,058,407


1924.







January
…
…
…
794,272
127,224
352,718
117,390
1,391,604


February
…
…
…
857,918
169,484
426,585
114,487
1,568,394


March
…
…
…
1,053,226
351,684
553,122
203,441
2,161,473


April
…
…
…
1,297,000
665,478
538,227
207,368
2,708,073


May
…
…
…
629,573
694,199
148,425
127,168
1,599,365


June
…
…
…
857,729
157,324
361,514
178,645
1,555,212


July
…
…
…
982,432
541,195
458,161
190,417
2,172,205


August
…
…
…
862,725
467,543
431,279
190,894
1,952,441


NOTE.—(1) The estimates of the quantities received by Luxemburg are believed to include certain quantities obtained under private contracts between Luxemburg and the German Mines.


(2) The above figures have been obtained from French and Belgium sources. They must not be regarded as in any way committing the Reparation Commission, to which the powers which occupied the Ruhr have not yet communicated their official figures of the coal obtained as the result of the occupation.

LOW-TEMPERATURE CARBONISATION.

Viscount SANDON: 25.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether, in view of the development that has been effected in the process of low-temperature carbonisation of coal, he will consider obtaining assistance for its commercial development, either through the safeguarding of industries scheme or by some other means, in order to improve the state of our coal trade and to secure a home supply of oil to meet our national requirements?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Colonel Lane-Fox): I cannot add anything at present to what was said yesterday on this subject by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

Mr. PALING: Has the hon. and gallant Member any knowledge whatever of any firm in this country having made any

application for assistance in any shape whatever to develop this low-temperature carbonisation process?

Colonel LANE-FOX: Yes. There have been two cases already before the Trades Facilities Committee, but I have not heard the actual and final result.

Mr. PALING: May I understand from the hon. and gallant Member that in all cases where this application is made it will be given his favourable consideration?

Colonel LANE-FOX: Really the answer to that must depend on the application that is made. I cannot reply to that until I know what is the application.

Mr. PALING: Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman think that the process of low-temperature carbonisation has gone far
enough now to warrant him recommending that these people should be helped in the development of it?

Colonel LANE-FOX: It depends on the process to which the hon. Member is referring. There are various processes, in various stages of development, and any help we can give to these processes I certainly hope will be given.

NATIONALISATION (MINES AND MINERALS).

Mr. LUNN: 26.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether His Majesty's Government intend introducing, and passing through this House, a Bill to nationalise mines and minerals this Session?

Colonel LANE-FOX: The answer is in the negative.

Mr. LUNN: Is the Minister aware that every miners' branch in Great Britain is unanimously of the opinion that this is the best means of dealing with the difficulties in the coal industry, and, in the absence of any policy by the Government and by the coalowners, why not take a practical suggestion from the workers?

Mr. SPEAKER: We cannot now debate that question.

Mr. BATEY: Does the Minister's answer apply to minerals as well as to mines?

Colonel LANE-FOX: Yes. The question asked was whether the Government intend introducing a Bill to nationalise mines and minerals this Session.

Mr. BATEY: Then does the hon. and gallant Gentleman's reply apply to minerals as well as mines, or what proposal does he intend to make?

MINES CLOSED.

Mr. MARDY JONES: 28.
asked the Secretary for Mines what steps are being taken by the Mines Department to ensure that pumping operations are being fully maintained in all the coal mines that are now closing down in the British coalfields, due to depression of trade or other causes, so as to prevent any danger of neighbouring mines being inundated?

Colonel LANE-FOX: On the general question of danger from waterlogged workings, I would refer the hon. Member to pages 46 and 47 of my Department's Report for 1924, from which be will see that this very important matter is receiving close attention. An accumulation of water in a mine does not always endanger other mines. The owners of any mine that may be threatened are responsible for taking whatever precautions may be necessary, and the inspectors make a point of looking into the question whenever notices of abandonment are received.

Mr. JONES: In view of the fact that there are 360 out of the total number of mines which have closed down within the last few months, how is it possible for those inspectors to examine into them for waterlogging?

Colonel LANE-FOX: I am receiving reports regularly in the case of every mine from the inspectors, and the matter is being carefully watched.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the question? What steps is his Department taking in the case of mines shut down to secure that the pumping arrangements are kept going? Will he kindly answer the question instead of referring us to page 1 or 2?

Colonel LANE-FOX: If the hon. Gentleman will do what I ask him to do, he will find fuller information than I can give him in an answer to a question.

Mr. BUCHANAN: But, Mr. Speaker, the hon. and gallant Gentleman is asked a definite question. In interests of the House we ask, and I want to know, and Members here want to know, what steps his Department are taking to secure that pumping arrangements at these pits are kept going, so that when the re-start is made the men will be sure of getting back to their work That is what we want to know.

Mr. SPEAKER: The Minister has given his answer.

Mr. BUCHANAN: He has not answered the question:

Mr. JONES: 29.
further asked the Secretary for Mines how many coal mines have been abandoned in each coalfield
during the three years 1922, 1923 and 1924; will he state what steps are being taken by the Mines Department in such cases to keep accurate records of the underground plans of such mines; and can he state how many of such mines in each coalfield are waterlogged?

Colonel LANE-FOX: As the reply includes a tabular statement, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

STATEMENT showing the number of Coal Mines at which one or more seams were abandoned during the years 1922, 1923 and 1924—arranged according to the Mining Industry Act Districts.


Number and Name of District.
1922.
1923.
1924.
Total for 3 years, 1922–1924.


1.
Northumberland
…
7
5
5
17


2.
Durham
…
6
6
11
23


3.
Cumberland and Westmorland
…
1
2
2
5


4.
Lancashire and Cheshire
…
25
21
22
68


5.
Yorkshire, South
…
17
15
11
43


6.
Yorkshire, West
…
20
10
12
42


7.
Nottinghamshire
…
2
1
—
3


8.
Derbyshire (except South Derbyshire)
…
12
10
11
33


9.
Derbyshire, South
…
—
—
—
—


10.
Staffordshire, North
…
14
12
6
32


11.
Cannock Chase
…
3
1
1
5


12.
Staffordshire, South and Worcestershire
…
11
7
12
30


13.
Leicestershire
…
1
—
—
1


14.
Warwickshire
…
1
2
1
4


15.
Shropshire
…
6
5
1
12


16.
Forest of Dean
…
4
2
1
7


17.
Somerset
…
2
—
2
4


18.
Bristol
…
—
—
—
—


19.
Kent
…
1
—
1
2


20.
South Wales and Monmouth
…
16
22
20
58


21.
North Wales
…
1
2
3
6


22.
Fife and Clackmannan
…
5
7
18
30


23.
Lothians (Mid. and East)
…
4
2
1
7


24.
Lanarkshire, Linlithgow, Stirling, Renfrew and Dumbarton.
…
39
28
42
109


25.
Ayrshire, Dumfries and Argyll
…
13
7
8
28


Total
…
211
167
191
569

Mr. CECIL WILSON: 35.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether he has made any investigation in regard to the causes for the closing of any one of the 361 coal mires closed since 1st November, 1924; and, if so, will he give the name of the mine, the date of investigation, and the result thereof?

Colonel LANE-FOX: I am informed in the ordinary course when a pit is closed and for what reason. The reasons given in the cases referred to fall under one of the following headings: unremunerative

Following is the reply:

The statement below shows the number of mines at which one or more seams were abandoned during the years 1922, 1923, 1924. As the law requires, plans were deposited at the Mines Department at the time when they were abandoned. These are examined and classified and retained in the Department, and a list of them is published from time to time. I cannot say how many of the abandoned mines are waterlogged.

working, insufficient trade, exhaustion of workable coal, disputes, accidents to machinery, and repairs. I have made no further investigations of the kind which I understand the hon. Member to have in mind.

Mr. WILSON: Is the deliberate policy of the Government to make no investigation at all, when there are 200,000 men out of work, although it is their policy to make an investigation were there 3,600 out in another industry?

Colonel LANE-FOX: As the hon. Gentleman knows, there has been considerable investigation going on in the industry itself, by the owners and the men, who have been meeting to consider the situation. I do not know that any inquiry which this House could set up could achieve more than has been done in this way.

Mr. BATEY: Is the Minister of Mines satisfied as to the answer he has received after the pits have been closed, or has he made representations to the owners to keep the pits going?

Colonel LANE-FOX: I have had reports whenever these pits have been closed.

Mr. BATEY: But has the hon. and gallant Gentleman urged upon the owners of these collieries to keep these collieries working?

Mr. MARDY JONES: Before that question is answered, Mr. Speaker— [HON MEMBERS: "Order, order!"] This is a very important question.

Mr. SPEAKER: I think the hon. Member should give other Members a chance.

MINING ROYALTIES.

Mr. MARDY JONES: 30.
asked the Secretary for Mines what is the average amount paid per ton in mineral royalties in each of the following coalfields: South Wales, Durham, Northumberland, Lancashire, Yorkshire, Fifeshire and Lanarkshire; and what is the amount of the average mineral royalty per ton paid on Cleveland iron ore, on Cumberland iron ore, and on Northampton iron ore at the present time?

Colonel LANE-FOX: As the answer is necessarily long and full of figures, I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. JONES: Will the Minister give cognisance to the fact that it is not only the royalties on coal but on iron ore; are not these a great charge upon the cost of production?

Colonel LANE-FOX: That is the very reason why I say that the answer is too long to give now.

Mr. CONNOLLY: Will the Minister of Mines give some attention to putting our own heavy steel industry on an equal footing with that of Germany, and is the
Government considering the way Germany did it—nationalising the mining royalties?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is quite another question.

Following is the answer:

The average royalties per ton of coal raised in the first three months of 1925 were as follows: —



Per ton.



d.


South Wales and Monmouth
8.34


Durham
6.13


Northumberland
6.24


Lancs., N. Staffs and Cheshire
4.66


Eastern District (including Yorkshire, Notts, Derby, Leicester, Cannock Chase and Warwickshire)
4.17


Scotland
6.19

Separate particulars for Lancashire, Yorkshire, Fifeshire and Lanarkshire are not available.

There are no official statistics of the royalties on iron ore and ironstone, but I am informed that in Cleveland they range from 2½d. to 6d. a ton, in Northamptonshire from 4d. to 6d., and in Cumberland 2s. 6d. may probably be regarded as a representative figure.

Mr. LUNN: 31.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether the Government will take steps with a view to the devising of means by which the amount now paid as mineral loyalties can be transferred to the Miners' Welfare Fund immediately or, alternatively, will see they are paid into the national Exchequer?

Colonel LANE-FOX: No, Sir. The acquisition of royalties does not form part of the Government's programme, and I have introduced a Bill, to which I hope the House will assent, making provision for continuing the Miners' Welfare Fund from the same source as at present.

Mr. LUNN: May I ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman what useful service is rendered by this body of people who receive 6½ million pounds sterling in mineral royalties? Could not that money be used for a much better purpose in view of a great depression in this industry?

Colonel LANE-FOX: I think that hardly arises out of the question—

Mr. LUNN: It does!

Colonel LANE-FOX: It is a very big question. I should like to point out that whether the royalties are paid to the State or to private persons does not make any difference to the wage capacity of the industry.

Mr. PALING: Is not this a question which largely affects the state of industry, in view of the fact that this huge amount of money is being paid to people who do nothing for it? Would not the hon. and gallant Gentleman take into consideration the question, helping of industry with that money?

Mr. MARDY JONES: Is it not a fact that, in addition to the 400 millions sterling paid in royalties on coal during the last 60 years, 4,000,000 tons of coal have been allowed to waste underground because of this royalty system?

SHORT-WEIGHT DELIVERIES.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: 32.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether his Department has now completed the promised independent inquiry into the question of short weight in coal received by rail from collieries; if so, what is the nature of the Report he has received; and what action he proposes to take?

Colonel LANE-FOX: I am not yet in a position to add anything to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member on the 20th May last. The inquiries that are being made are not yet completed.

DEEP SHAFTS.

Mr. J. GUEST: 33.
asked the Secretary for Mines what is the depth of the deepest coal mine shaft in Great Britain now being worked; and what is the greatest distance from the shaft or pit bottom where men are now employed?

Colonel LANE-FOX: Nine hundred and ninety-three yards is at present the greatest distance that men are raised and lowered for the purpose of coal-getting; and the greatest distance that any workings lie from the pit bottom is about four miles.

Mr. GUEST: Could not the hon. and gallant Gentleman say what is the maxi-
mum distance of which his Department approves of for men working at the shaft bottom?

Colonel LANE-FOX: I cannot answer that question without notice.

Mr. PALING: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman say what the colliery was that has a depth of 933 yards?

Colonel LANE-FOX: The Parsonage pit in Lancashire.

Mr. GUEST: Could the hon. and gallant Gentleman say whether there is any maximum depth now provided by law?

Colonel LANE-FOX: I am afraid I cannot; I should like to have notice.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is it right, Mr. Speaker, that mining Members should be putting questions to the Minister of Mines that he knows absolutely nothing about?

LOWERING AND WINDING TIME.

Mr. GUEST: 34.
also asked the Secretary for Mines the maximum time allowed, beyond the seven hours per shift for coal-winding, for the purpose of lowering the men into the mine before the shift and also for withdrawing them after the shift is over; and whether he can say what are the average times allowed, for pits employing a 1,000 men or over, for the purpose of lowering or winding men?

Colonel LANE-FOX: The longest approved winding time is 90 minutes. As regards the second part of the question, I cannot give the average for the country as a whole, but the averages in the different inspectoral divisions vary from 26 to 55 minutes.

Mr. GUEST: Is it not a fact that in the collieries where the winding time allowed is 90 minutes, that it is possible for the men to be in the colliery 10 hours without any breach of the Act; and is it not a fact, further, that if the average time for the larger collieries were given, the bulk of the men employed are actually called upon to spend 8 hours or more in the pit.

Colonel LANE-FOX: Ninety minutes is a very exceptional case. The hon. Member will see from my answer that the average time is a good deal less than that.

Mr. GUEST: My question was meant to suggest that I want an average for the
pits that really count: pits where the bulk of the men are employed. The hon. and gallant Gentleman has not given that average.

Colonel LANE-FOX: I was giving what information I had at my disposal. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will explain to me in conversation exactly what he wants, and I will certainly try to get him the information.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Will the hon. Gentleman give the name of the colliery where an hour and a-quarter is allowed for changing time? Is he not aware that at the average colliery the miner now spends between 7¾ to 8¼ hours underground?

Colonel LANE-FOX: I could not at this moment give the name asked for. I know it is in Yorkshire; but I will try and get the information for the hon. Gentleman.

COAL CONSUMPTION (POWER RAISING).

Mr. HARDIE: 36.
asked the Secretary for Mines the average consumption of coal per 1,000 pounds steam raised in our manufacturing and industrial areas, and the corresponding figures taking an average over the electric power stations?

Colonel LANE-FOX: I regret that no statistics are available which would enable me to answer this question.

Mr. HARDIE: Am I to understand from the answer that neither the Board of Trade nor the Mines Department have the least idea as to what is produced by one pound of coal burnt for steam or used for any other purpose of raising power? Are we to understand that the Departments are so inefficient that we cannot get a figure such as that relating to a big industry?

Mr. SPEAKER: Mr. Rennie Smith.

Mr. HARDIE: I want to protest. I want to ask whether I can have an answer to guide me in future? It is no use my putting down questions, and wasting the time of the House. The reason for not putting down questions will be the absolute ignorance and inefficiency of the Department; and unless I am going to get an answer I give you notice—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"] —that I will raise this question as to the inefficiency and the ignorance of the Board
of Trade and the Mines Department, on the first opportunity.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

WAGES AGREEMENT.

Mr. RENNIE SMITH: 37.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether the employers in the mining industry have decided to give notice on 30th June next of the termination of the existing agreement in the mining industry; and, if so, if he can state the reasons for this decision?

Colonel LANE-FOX: Yes, Sir. I understand that the colliery owners have this morning given notice to terminate the present national wages agreement, on the ground that, in the present conditions of the industry, it is not economically possible to continue it.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that certain collieries, in various parts of Yorkshire at any rate, are even now paying 20 to 25 per cent. dividends, and will his Department at least make some investigation to prevent the calamity that may occur?

Colonel LANE-FOX: Yes, it is true that some pits are doing much better than others, but I would point out that the termination of the agreement merely clears the ground, to make other arrangements where they may be necessary.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that unless there be some real unification of the mines, taking the good with the bad, there is no possibility either of peace in the industry or a living for the miners?

Mr. SPEAKER: We cannot now go into that.

STATE ROYALTIES.

Mr. LAWSON: 38.
asked the Secretary for Mines the coal areas of Great Britain in which the State has royalty rights, the areas from which revenue is being drawn, and the amount for the last financial year?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Edward Wood): I have been asked to reply. As the answer is rather long, I propose, with the hon. Member's permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the information:

With the exception of small areas in the Counties of York, Durham, Carmarthen and Pembroke, and an extensive area in the neighbourhood of Dean Forest, the coal areas in which the State has royalty rights are practically confined to lands under the sea and foreshore. Revenue is being derived from areas in the Counties of Cumberland, Durham, Northumberland, York, Kent, Carmarthen, Pembroke, Argyll and Ayr, and the Firth of Forth and Dean Forest districts. During the year ended 31st March, 1925, royalties from coal amounted to the gross sum of £121,734 9s. 11d.

Mr. MARDY JONES: It is very important that we should know in what parts of the country there are ground rights for royalties.

Mr. WOOD: If the hon. Member will not mind waiting, he will have that information to-morrow in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. JONES: We want it now, and I do not see why we should not get it now. There are not many parts of the country where there are ground rights.

The HON. MEMBER (for Mr. CAPE): 39.
asked the Secretary for Mines the amount of revenue to the State from the royalties in the Cumberland coalfield during 1924; whether these royalties have now been leased to private persons; and, if so, whether he will give the names of those concerned?

Major Sir HARRY BARNSTON (for Mr. EDWARD WOOD): I have been asked to reply. The revenue received by the State from the royalties in the Cumberland coalfield during the year ended 31st March, 1925, amounted to the gross sum of £8,787 2s. 2d. These royalties are reserved in four leases, the lessees being

The Earl of Lonsdale.
Mr. Alan D. Curwen.
The Risehow Colliery and By Products Company, Limited.
The St. Helen's Colliery and Brickworks Company, Limited.

Oral Answers to Questions — GAS UNDERTAKINGS (EMPLOYMENT).

Mr. R. MORRISON: 41.
asked the Minister of Transport whether, in order
to reassure the employés of gas undertakings throughout the country, who fear that the Government proposes to subsidise the electrical industry, thereby handicapping and causing unemployment in the gas industry, he can give any indication of the Government's proposals or their attitude upon this specific point?

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): I am not in a position to add anything to the replies given by me on the 18th and 25th May to questions on this subject by my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Essex (Mr. Looker), copies of which I am sending to the hon. Member.

Mr. MORRISON: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman make any statement to allay the anxiety of thousands of gas workers throughout the United Kingdom, that, whatever the Government proposals are, they will not prejudice their employment?

Colonel ASHLEY: Yes; no electricity proposals will entail anything that need perturb gas employés. I can only say that.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

MANOR WAY BRIDGE, EAST HAM.

Mr. BARNES: 42.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that the Manor Way railway bridge, London and North Eastern Railway, at East Ham, has now been under repair for some months and still appears to be far from completed; that it is causing great inconvenience to the travelling public; and whether he can state to the House the reasons for the delay and if he is to expedite in any way the completion of the job?

Colonel ASHLEY: I am fully aware of the importance of the Manor Way bridge which, as the hon. Member is aware, is a road bridge over the railway line. I have done my best to facilitate its reconstruction by offering a substantial grant. Several public bodies, however, are concerned in the matter, and I regret to say that no agreement has yet been reached enabling common action to be taken.

ROAD TARRING.

Colonel DAY: 43.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that many
local authorities are now engaged in the annual tarring of roads and that this work is carried out in the crudest possible manner; and will he make representations to such authorities suggesting that greater care be exercised when covering roads with tar, so as to avoid the damage at present being caused to the carriage work of vehicles using the roads?

Colonel ASHLEY: I think that, generally speaking, tar-dressing is carried out with due regard to the convenience of road users, but if the hon. and gallant Member will let me have details of specific instances to the contrary, I will gladly have them investigated so that, if necessary, representations may be made to any authorities that are at fault.

Mr. R. S. HUDSON: Has my hon. and gallant Friend had occasion lately to pass down the Fulham Road and to see its condition?

Colonel ASHLEY: If my hon. Friend will give me the details of the case he has in mind, I will at once have it investigated?

RAILWAYS (ELECTRIFICATION).

Mr. RENNIE SMITH: 54.
asked the Minister of Transport if the Government intend to take any steps with regard to the electrification of the main railways?

Colonel ASHLEY: As the hon. Member is no doubt aware, the Government are considering the whole question of electricity. It may be assumed that any improvement in the supply and distribution of electricity will facilitate its use as a motive power on railways, as well as in other directions.

Oral Answers to Questions — MOTOR TRAFFIC.

PARKING PLACES.

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: 53.
asked the Minister of Transport whether his Department is prepared to make good any damage to the railings of squares which have been declared to be parking places for cars, in the event of the offender not being identified; and, if not, who will relieve the resident householders of the cost of such repairs for damage caused by persons whose cars are so parked contrary to the wishes of such householders?

Colonel ASHLEY: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. I am making Regulations for the better regulation of parking places in the London Traffic Area, which, I hope, will diminish the likelihood of occurrences such as my hon. and gallant Friend has in mind.

Captain A. EVANS: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when these Regulations are going to be published?

Colonel ASHLEY: In the course of next few weeks.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCHOOL LEAVING AGE.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 45.
asked the Prime Minister what would be the approximate cost of raising the school age to 15 years and providing each child with a maintenance grant of 5s. per week; how many children would this include; and the approximate cost for unemployment pay to a corresponding number; of persons with the average number of dependants?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Churchill): I have consulted my right hon. Friends, and, as the reply is lengthy and contains figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. PALING: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Government are considering this question as one of the possible ways of reducing unemployment?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I am not aware of any inquiries of that kind which are going on at the present moment.

Mr. MAXTON: Will the Government consider this as one of the methods of dealing with unemployment?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I have also to consider the question of the expenditure of the country.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman if the Cabinet have never yet consulted him to see if he cannot devise ways and means of remedying unemployment?

Mr. B. SMITH: The industrial Mussolini!

Following is the reply:

If pupils were required, after completing the term in which they attain the age of 14, to stay at the public elementary school for another year, it is estimated that this would cause an addition of 450,000 to the average attendance, and that, including the pupils of that age already in school, there would be 540,000 such pupils on the registers. The number of additional pupils who could probably be accommodated in the schools as they are now, without new buildings, would not be large and could only be ascertained by special investigation; but it would not be practicable to provide the necessary number of new school places within a short time, and any attempt to do so would tend to increase the cost of school building. A hypothetical estimate based on the assumption that so large an operation could be carried out at present rates of cost would be misleading.

The present cost of building public elementary schools may be put at about £30 a school place, involving loan charges of about £2 per annum. The annual cost of instruction may be reckoned at the present average at about £11 per head. The cost, therefore, of providing for additional pupils between the ages of 14 and 15 would be about £13 per head. Under the present grant system the charges are divided between grants and rates, on an average for the whole country in the proportion of 56 per cent. falling on grants and 44 per cent. falling on rates. Taking the cost of an additional unit of average attendance at £13, about £7 5s. would fall on grants and £5 15s. on rates.

Maintenance allowances at 5s. a week for 40 weeks in the year would add £10 per annum to these figures. Under the present grant system the cost of maintenance allowances in public elementary schools falls about equally on grants and rates.

The amount of unemployment benefit payable to 450,000 persons with the average number of dependants would be about £350,000 a week.

Oral Answers to Questions — INCOME TAX.

Colonel DAY: 46.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware of the fact that a considerable number of alien
musicians and film artistes who receive remunerative engagements in Great Britain, receiving salaries running into hundreds of pounds weekly for short periods, escape the necessity of paying Income Tax; and will he consider introducing legislation, or devising some means, so as to see that these persons are compelled to pay this tax?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I would refer to the replies which my right hon. Friend gave to the hon. and gallant Member's question and supplementary question on this subject on the 28th April last. As was then indicated, the main part of the Income Tax due from foreign artistes performing in this country is ultimately recovered. As regards the comparatively trifling amount of tax which is at present not collected in these cases, the matter is being further examined, but this tax could only be secured by rather complicated legislation, which might have undesirable results in other directions.

Colonel DAY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some of these artistes earn salaries of £750 and £1,000 per week, and after working in this country for some protracted period go back to their own countries without paying Income Tax at all? Cannot he take steps to see they pay their Income Tax before they leave?

Mr. CHURCHILL: My answer shows that I am advised in a different sense. The great bulk of the Income Tax is collected.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that any penal legislation against this particular class of person would probably lead to reprisals and create great hardships for our own artistes abroad?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I understand our artistes, when they go abroad, do have to pay.

Colonel WOODCOCK: 48.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the estimated number of individuals for the year 1925–26 actually relieved from Income Tax; the estimated number chargeable with Income Tax; and the number of individuals liable to Super-tax?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I regret that these estimates cannot yet be framed.

Oral Answers to Questions — INTER-ALLIED DEBTS (ITALY).

Captain GARRO-JONES: 47.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can now give any information regarding negotiations with France and Italy for the funding of their debts to this country?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I have nothing to add with regard to France. The Italian Government have formally notified His Majesty's Government of their willingness to initiate conversations of a definite character for a friendly settlement of their war debt to this country.

Captain GARRO-JONES: May I ask whether this is a new assurance, in addition to that which was given in the same sense six months ago?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Oh, yes, it is a new assurance which has reached me since I was last questioned by the hon. and gallant Gentleman on this subject, and it has also been published in an official communiqué by the Italian Government.

Mr. VARLEY: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the House any idea of the cash value of the conversation?

Mr. CHURCHILL: That is a matter which it would be better to pronounce upon when the conversation has been concluded.

Mr. MACKINDER: Does a friendly settlement mean a possible payment?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I cannot conceive any settlement which could be considered either friendly or a settlement which did not include as one of its features a certain payment.

Mr. BECKETT: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether conversations are also going to take place between Italy and America as regards that debt?

Mr. CHURCHILL: That may be so, but I have no official information.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRESS CABLE RATES (AUSTRALIA).

Sir HARRY BRITTAIN: 50 and 51.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) whether, seeing that the Australian Government, the Pacific Cablee Board and the Imperial Post Office, subject to Treasury sanction, have agreed to a reduction in cable charges to Australia
with full knowledge of all the circumstances, he will inform the House why the Treasury withholds its sanction on the ground of congestion,
(2) whether the Australian Commonwealth has agreed to the reduction in Press cable rates between that country and Great Britain from 1½d. to 6d. a word; and what efforts are being made to put that reduction into effect?

Mr. CHURCHILL: My right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary informed the House on Wednesday last that this matter was under consideration. As a result sanction has now been given to the proposed reduction in the Press cable rate to Australia.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE.

ADMINISTRATION, NORTHERN IRELAND (COST).

Sir ROBERT LYNN: 55.
asked the Postmaster-General the cost, actual or estimated, of the services rendered by the London officials in the administration of the Post Office services in Northern Ireland?

The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir William Mitchell-Thomson): The estimated cost at headquarters of the administration of the Post Office in Northern Ireland, inclusive of accommodation and pension liability charges, is £39,000 per annum.

SUPERVISING OFFICERS (BELFAST).

Sir R. LYNN: 56.
asked the Postmaster-General why the 86 supervising officers in the Belfast post office have not been graded on the same principle as the officers of Metropolitan post offices; and whether he is aware that the Metropolitan principle has been applied in the case of Customs, Excise and Inland Revenue officials in Belfast as well as to the Post Office clerical officers employed in that city?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The Metropolitan principle has not been applied for the purpose of assessing the pay of the staff at head post offices. The classification of the Belfast post office is the same as that of post offices in Great Britain where the volume of work is similar. I am aware that different arrangements are made in other Departments and in the case of Treasury classes.

TELEPHONE SERVICE.

Mr. MacKENZIE LIVINGSTONE: 57.
asked the Postmaster-General the percentage of telephone subscribers of the populations of London and Montreal; and whether, with the view of improving the London telephone service, he will make inquiries into the working of the telephone Service of Montreal?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The ratio of telephones to population in the administrative County of London is 8 per cent. The latest available figure for Montreal is 11.4 per cent. The telephone services in both cities are operated on the same system; but the hon. Member is no doubt aware that use of the telephone is generally more extended in Canada and the United States than in Great Britain. The Post Office keeps in constant touch with the working of the telephone services of other administrations.

SIXPENNY TELEGRAMS.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: 58.
asked the Postmaster-General whether he can give any rough estimate of the loss, if any, which would be incurred if his Department decided to return to the sixpenny telegram?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The additional loss of revenue would exceed £1,500,000 yearly, if the traffic remained at its present level. The extra cost of handling any increase of traffic which resulted from a reduction of charge would probably be larger than the additional revenue accruing.

NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

READJUSTMENT.

Colonel DAY: 59.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether, seeing that pensioners, both officers and other ranks, are being: notified by the Ministry of Pensions that their pension is liable to readjustment after the year 1926, according to the increase, or decrease, in the cost of living, he will have the intimation withdrawn from all further notification of awards?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of PENSIONS (Lieut.-Colonel Stanley): The form of notifica-
tion referred to by the hon. Member was altered more than a week ago.

WIDOW'S PENSION.

Rear-Admiral SUETER: 61.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether his attention has been drawn to the case of a widowed lady, with three children, who, as stated in a letter published in the Press of 25th June, from Vice-Admiral Dent, has lost £86 per annum for the rest of her life because a circular forwarded by the Paymaster-General did not reach her, with the consequence that she was four months late in making application for the increase of pension to which she was eligible; and whether he will take steps to secure to this widowed lady her proper pension?

Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: This question apparently refers to the same case as that mentioned in the question asked by the hon. Member for Peckham on the 25th instant. I am sending my hon. and gallant Friend a copy of the question and the answer given.

INSTITUTIONAL TREATMENT (TUBERCULOSIS).

Brigadier-General BROOKE: 62.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware that it is the custom to give ex-service men whose tuberculosis is admitted as attributable to war service only four weeks' institutional treatment; and, seeing that satisfactory results cannot be expected within such a limited period, if he will grant longer periods of treatment?

Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: My hon. and gallant Friend has, I fear, been seriously misinformed. It has been the policy, both of my right hon. Friend and of his predecessors, in co-operation with the Ministry of Health, to secure as far as possible preferential treatment for disabled men suffering from tuberculosis due to their war service, and I am glad to say that the average period of in-patient treatment in these cases is not one month, but four months.

Brigadier-General BROOKE: Would the hon. and gallant Gentleman consider a case if I sent him one?

Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: Yes, Sir, most certainly. I think the hon. and gallant Member may have confused the case where we have a man in for observation and not for treatment. We have a
man in for one month in order to observe whether he has developed tuberculosis, but for treatment the average is four months. I will certainly look into any case which the hon. and gallant Member may send to me.

HORSES (EXPORT).

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: 63.
asked the Minister of Agriculture the number and value of live horses shipped from this country to France and Belgium, respectively, during the first five months of the present year?

Mr. E. WOOD: During the five months ended 31st May last, 358 live horses of the value of £46,787 were shipped to France and 1,765, of the value of £76,502, to Belgium.

RUSSIAN NATIONALS CLAIMS.

Mr. BECKETT: 67.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in what way the views of the Government on their preparedness to consider compensation claims of Russian nationals for the damage inflicted on Russian property and nationals in 1918, 1919, and 1920 have been brought before the Soviet Union?

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): The views of His Majesty's Government on Russian claims were set forth at the Genoa Conference and the Hague Conference in 1922 and at the Anglo-Soviet Conference in 1924.

Mr. BECKETT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in this House expressed his willingness to consider the claims of Russian nationals?

Captain A. EVANS: When the right hon. Gentleman made that statement he said that he would consider the claims of Russian nationals when our claims had been met by the other side?

Mr. BECKETT: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that that is not the case.

Mr. SAMUEL: With regard to the point which has been put to me by the hon. and gallant Member below the Gangway (Captain Evans), I think what he has said is perfectly correct. If the hon. Gentleman opposite will refer to the Foreign Secretary's reply on the 27th May he will see that that was exactly the point raised.

GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH (ACTON STAFF).

Mr. ROBINSON: 69.
asked the Minister of Health what is the number of the staff of his Department employed in the office at Bromyard Avenue, Acton; and whether members of operatic or dramatic societies connected with the Ministry of Health will have the same facilities for the use of this public building as have been accorded to members of the staff of the Ministry of Pensions?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): The staff employed by my right hon. Friend's Department at Bromyard Avenue, Acton, numbers 950 The Luncheon Club Committee at this office have, from time to time, given facilities for the use of the canteen premises for operatic and dramatic purposes to members of the Ministry of Pensions' staff, and my right hon. Friend has no doubt that similar facilities, if desired, will be afforded to members of the staff of his Department.

RUSSIAN CLAIMS DEPARTMENT.

Sir G. DOYLE (for Mr. HANNON): 10.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the number of persons at present employed in the Russian Claims Department; whether the particulars of the amounts claimed in the various categories have been submitted to the Soviet Government; and the result of such claims?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The number of persons at present on the staff of the Russian Claims Department is three. Particulars of the amounts claimed in the various categories were furnished to the Soviet delegation in the course of the negotiations last year. As regards the last part of the question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply returned yesterday by the Foreign Secretary to the hon. and gallant Member for Handsworth (Commander O. Locker-Lampson).

IMPERIAL WAR GRAVES COMMISSION OFFICE.

Sir JOHN MARRIOTT: 78.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, what public departments, if any, are located at 82, Baker Street, W.; what is the estimated
letting value of the premises; and whether he will consider the possibility, without loss of efficiency, of transferring the department to less costly offices in a less important business thoroughfare?

Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSON (for the First Commissioner of Works): The premises referred to are occupied by the Imperial War Graves Commission Though I am not in a position to state their present letting value, I am advised that the terms on which they are held by the Office of Works are very favourable, and that it would not at present be possible to hire suitable alternative accommodation more cheaply.

Sir J. MARRIOTT: Could not this Department be housed in the War Office itself?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I think that that is really a question for the War Office.

UNEMPLOYMENT.

POOR LAW RELIEF.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 70.
asked the Minister of Health the total amount paid on account of Poor Law relief due to unemployment during the quarters April, June, and the two subsequent quarters of 1924?

Sir K. WOOD: The amount of domiciliary Poor Law relief in money or kind given in England and Wales to persons ordinarily engaged on some regular occupation, and their dependants, was as follows:



£


During the Quarter ended—



March, 1924
1,733,993


June, 1924
1,355,677


September, 1924
1,169,206


December, 1924
1,101,077


These sums include all domiciliary Poor Law relief in money or kind given to the persons mentioned, whether granted on account of unemployment or for other reasons, such as (for example) sickness.

FIFE.

Mr. W. M. WATSON: 72.
asked the Minister of Labour the total number of
registered unemployed in the county of Fife for the most recent date for which figures are available, and the corresponding week last year; and the number registered as miners, textile workers, building trade operatives and labourers?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Betterton): The number of persons on the registers of Employment Exchanges in the county of Fife was 16,145 on 22nd June, 1925, as compared with 1,899 on 23rd June, 1924. The number on the registers at the present date include 9,648 miners, 1,384 textile workers and 205 building trade workers. Separate figures for labourers are not available. The corresponding figures for the same date last year were 273, 297 and 91.

RELIEF WORK.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: 75.
asked the Minister of Labour the estimated number of persons now in employment as a result of relief schemes and the Trade Facilities Act and the Export Credits Scheme?

Mr. BETTERTON: According to returns received, the number of men directly employed on works put in hand for the relief of unemployment with Government assistance was 110,183 on the 30th May. This figure includes 45,330 men employed on schemes in respect of which guarantees have been authorised under the Trade Facilities Acts, but takes no account of the indirect employment provided. Figures showing the employment arising as the result of the Exports Credits Scheme are not available.

Colonel GRETTON: May I ask whether these schemes are regarded by the Government as tentative or permanent schemes?

Mr. BETTERTON: I could not answer that question without notice, and I should say that probably some of them are temporary and some are permanent.

EX-LOCAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYéS.

Mr. VIANT: 76.
asked the Minister of Labour if he has considered the position of a workman who has been a contributor to the Unemployment Insurance Fund from its inception, becomes a local government employé, and, as a result, ceases
to be a contributor to the fund, but after a few years is dismissed, and finds himself unable to present a card at the Employment Exchange with the necessary stamps qualifying him for benefit; and what instructions are given for the guidance of officials of Employment Exchanges in dealing with such cases?

Mr. BETTERTON: The case supposed is, I assume, that of a local government employé on the permanent staff covered by a certificate of exception from unemployment insurance. Contributions are payable for the first three years on the permanent staff, and the risk of unemployment is covered for the period for which these contributions remain valid. After that period the employé ceases to be entitled to unemployment benefit, and this must obviously be the effect of a certificate of exception which after three years relieves him and his employer from liability to pay contributions. The instructions to exchanges give effect to this rule. I may add that any discharges of persons covered by a certificate, if notified to the Department, are inquired into with a view to seeing whether the conditions under which the certificate was issued are complied with.

STEEL HOUSES.

Mr. RENNIE SMITH: 71.
asked the Minister of Health if any local authorities are building steel houses; and, if so, will he state which local authorities and the number, type and cost of house in each case?

Sir K. WOOD: As the answer involves a tabular statement, I will, with permission of the hon. Member, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Major CRAWFURD: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us if any local authorities have been stopped from embarking upon these schemes, because the people were not able to settle the cost?

Sir K. WOOD: I must have notice of that question.

Following is the answer to the Question on the Paper:

The following is a statement of the number of houses of external steel con-
struction which local authorities have been authorised to erect:


Name of Authority.
Number of houses.
Type.


Birmingham
8
Telford.


Bristol
20
Telford.


Bolton
100
Telford.


Hastings
8
Telford.


Smethwick
6
Telford.


Swansea
2
Own design resembling Weir type.


Woolwich
A small number (not exceeding 20).
Telford.

The average cost of the Telford houses is £490 each, and the estimated cost of the two houses to be erected at Swansea is £500 each. All the houses are of the non-parlour type.

The figures do not include the 150 houses to be erected under special arrangements for demonstration purposes.

INTERNATIONAL LABOUR CONFERENCE.

Colonel WOODCOCK: 73.
asked the Minister of Labour whether, and when it is proposed to issue a White Paper reporting the proceedings of the International Labour Conference which terminated on the 10th June last; and if he can give the names of the British representatives and the chief subjects discussed?

Mr. BETTERTON: A report of the proceedings of the recent conference will be published, but I cannot yet say when it will be ready. The names of the British delegation were given in the reply to the hon. Member for Keighley on 14th May, of which I am sending my hon. Friend a copy.
The chief subjects discussed were: Workmen's compensation; consideration of a general report on social insurance; weekly suspension of work for 24 hours in glass-manufacturing processes where tank furnaces are used; night work in bakeries.

Colonel WOODCOCK: In view of the fact that we are the greatest partner in the payment of the expense, is it not possible for the hon. Gentleman to give the earliest information to the House in
regard to the proceedings which have taken place?

Mr. BETTERTON: That is what I am trying to do. I am sure my hon. and gallant Friend will be the first to realise that the report of a conference of this kind, which lasted three weeks, is a matter which cannot be dealt with in answer to a supplementary question.

Colonel WOODCOCK: When may we expect to have this important Paper?

Mr. BETTERTON: In about three weeks.

INTERNATIONAL LABOUR OFFICE

Colonel WOODCOCK: 74.
asked the Minister of Labour whether the Director of the International Labour Office is entitled to exercise independence of the governing body, and the right to issue statements of policy in memoranda of information without submitting them for the approval of the governing body; and whether the memoranda accompanying the questionnaires circulated to member States of the International Labour Office, in reference to items of the agenda of the annual conferences, are under the authority of the officials of the International Labour Office and not of the governing body of the office?

Mr. BETTERTON: The position and duties of the Director of the International Labour Office are defined by Part XIII of the Treaty. As regards the second part of the question, in general the governing body takes no responsibility for the contents of the publications of the International Labour Office, and this rule holds good for the memoranda accompanying the questionnaires to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers.

Colonel WOODCOCK: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the statement of policy should come from the officials and not from the governing body? If an official is to announce what is to be put on the agenda and what is to be dis-

cussed, the governing body have no power.

Mr. BETTERTON: The Government are pressing for more rigid control by the governing body over publications of general importance, in order to keep these matters more under the control of the governing body than has been the case up to the present, and that such publications shall not be put in hand without the authority of the governing body.

ENEMY ACTION CLAIMS.

Sir GRATTAN DOYLE (for Mr. HANNON): 9.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the position with regard to the distribution of the £300,000 set aside for belated claims for reparation against enemy action; and, if any distribution has been made, the amount so distributed?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The position is that about 29,000 claims have been sent in, of which over 23,200 have been paid, the amount of money distributed being, approximately, £265,000. About 4,000 claims have been rejected, and, of the remaining 1,700, some claims are still incomplete and some are awaiting decision.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Captain BENN: May I ask the Prime Minister what business, in the event of the Motion standing in his name being carried, he will be taking to-night?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): The Committee stage of the Pensions Bill, as announced—nothing else.

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted at this day's Sitting from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]

The House divided: Ayes, 259; Noes, 135.

Division No. 219.]
AYES.
[3.46 p.m.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Astor, Viscountess
Barnett, Major Sir Richard


Albery Irving James
Atkinson, C.
Barnston, Major Sir Harry


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Beamish, Captain T. P. H.


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Balniel, Lord
Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.
Barclay-Harvey C. M.
Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)


Bennett, A. J.
Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Nuttall, Ellis


Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-
Ganzonl, Sir John
Oakley, T.


Berry, Sir George
Gee, Captain R.
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Bethell, A.
Gilmour. Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William


Betterton, Henry B.
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Pennefather, Sir John


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Goff, Sir Park
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Grace, John
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Pielou, D. p.


Blundell, F. N.
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Sir H.(W'th's'w, E)
Pilcher, G.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Gretton, Colonel John
Preston, William


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Price, Major C. W. M.


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Hall, Lieut.-Col Sir F. (Dulwich)
Radford, E. A.


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Hall, Vice-Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne)
Raine, W.


Brass, Captain W.
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Ramsden, E.


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Harrison, G. J. C.
Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. John Fredk. Peel


Briggs, J. Harold
Hartington, Marquess of
Rice, Sir Frederick


Brittain, Sir Harry
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Haslam, Henry C.
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Henderson, Capt. R.R.(Oxf'd, Henley)
Ropner, Major L.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C.(Berks, Newb'y)
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)
Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Bullock, Captain M.
Hennesey, Major J. R. G.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Burman, J. B.
Henniker-Hughan, Vice-Adm. Sir A.
Sandeman, A. Stewart


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Herbert, S.(York, N. R., Scar. & Wh'by)
Sandon, Lord


Butt, Sir Alfred
Hilton, Cecil
Savery, S. S.


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W. R., Sowerby)


Campbell, E. T.
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl.(Renfrew, W.)


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Holt, Capt. H. P.
Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Shepperson, E. W.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Sinclair, Col. T.(Queen's Univ., Belfast)


Chapman, Sir S.
Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.
Skelton, A. N.


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Howard, Capt. Hon. D. (Cumb., N.)
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Christie, J. A.
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Clarry, Reginald George
Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Clayton, G. C.
Huntingfield, Lord
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hurst, Gerald B.
Spender Clay, Colonel H.


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Hutchison, G. A. Clark (Midl'n & P'bl's)
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F.(Will'sden, E.)


Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Jacob, A. E.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
James. Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Cooper, A. Duff
Jephcott, A. R.
Strickland, Sir Gerald


Cope, Major William
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Stuart, Crichton, Lord C.


Couper, J. B.
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Styles, Captain H. Walter


Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Knox, Sir Alfred
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Crook, C. W.
Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Col. George R.
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Cunliffe, Joseph Herbert
Locker-Lampson, Com. O.(Handsw'th)
Tinne, J. A.


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Looker, Herbert William
Tryon, Rt. Hen. George Clement


Dalkeith, Earl of
Lougher, L.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Davies, A. V. (Lancaster, Royton)
Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Waddington, R.


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset. Yeovil)
Lynn, Sir R. J.
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
MacAndrew, Charles Glen
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Macintyre, l.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Doyle, Sir N. Grattan
McLean, Major A.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Drewe, C.
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


Eden, Captain Anthony
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Watts, Dr. T.


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Malone, Major P. B.
Wilder, Major Sir Granville C. H.


Edwards, John H. (Accrington)
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dairymple


Elliot, Captain Walter E.
Margesson, Captain D.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torguay)


Elveden, Viscount
Mason, Lieut.-Colonel Glyn K.
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


England, Colonel A.
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)


Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Wise, Sir Fredric


Everard, W. Lindsay
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Womersley, W. J.


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Moore, Sir Newton J.
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Wood, Rt. Hon. E. (York, W. R., Ripon)


Fanshawe, Commander G. D.
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)


Fielden, E. B.
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.).


Finburgh, S.
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)


Fleming, D. P.
Murchison, C. K.
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Ford, P. J.
Nail, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Nelson, Sir Frank



Forrest, W.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Foxcroft. Captain C. T.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Colonel Gibbs and Captain Douglas


Frece, Sir Walter de
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Hacking.


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G.(Ptrsfld.)





NOES.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich)


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hardie, George D.
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)


Ammon, Charles George
Harland, A.
Rose, Frank H.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Harney, E. A.
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Baker, Walter
Hayday, Arthur
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Barnes, A.
Hirst, G. H.
Smillie, Robert


Barr, J.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Batey, Joseph
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Snell, Harry


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Briant, Frank
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe)


Broad, F. A.
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Stamford, T. W.


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Stephen, Campbell


Buchanan, G.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Sutton, J. E.


Charleton, H. C.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Taylor, R. A.


Clowes, S.
Kelly, W. T.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Cluse, W. S.
Kennedy, T.
Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro, W.)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Kirkwood, D.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Compton, Joseph
Lawson, John James
Thurtle, E.


Connolly, M.
Lee, F.
Tinker, John Joseph


Cove, W. G.
Livingstone, A. M.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Lowth, T.
Varley, Frank B.


Crawfurd, H. E.
Lunn, William
Viant, S. P.


Dalton, Hugh
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon)
Wallhead, Richard C.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Mackinder, W.
Warne, G. H.


Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
March, S.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Day, Colonel Harry
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Dennison, R.
Maxton, James
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Dunnico, H.
Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)
Welsh, J. C.


Fenby, T. D.
Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.
Montague, Frederick
Whiteley, W.


Gillett, George M.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Gosling, Harry
Murnin, H.
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Greenall, T.
Naylor, T. E.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Owen, Major G.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Palin, John Henry
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Paling, W.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Groves, T.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Windsor, Walter


Grundy, T. W.
Ponsonby, Arthur
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)
Potts, John S.



Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr, Tydvil)
Riley, Ben
Mr. Hayes and Mr. Charles




Edwards.

BILLS PRESENTED.

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BILL,

"to amend Sub-section (3) of Section 1 and Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of The Unemployment Insurance (No. 2) Act, 1924; to amend the Law with respect to the period on the expiration of which benefit under the Acts relating to Unemployment Insurance becomes payable and with respect to the rates of contribution under the said Acts; and to continue the saving contained in Sub-section (1) of Section 11 of The Unemployment Insurance Act, 1923," presented by Sir ARTHUR STEEL-MAITLAND; supported by Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Neville Chamberlain, and Mr. Betterton; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 206.]

EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL,

"to amend The Education (Scotland) Act, 1908, and The Education (Scotland) Act, 1918," presented by Sir JOHN
GILMOUR; supported by the Lord Advocate and Mr. Solicitor-General for Scotland; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 207.]

BILLS REPORTED.

Ipswich Corporation Bill [Lords],

Reported, with Amendments, from the Local Legislation Committee (Section B); Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Burnley Corporation Bill,

Reported, with Amendments [Title amended], from the Local Legislation Committee (Section A); Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

CHAIRMEN'S PANEL.

Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON reported from the Chairmen's Panel; That they had
appointed Sir Cyril Cobb to act as Chairman of Standing Committee B (in respect of the Tithe Bill); Sir Robert Hamilton of Standing Committee C (in respect of the Seeds Act (1920) Amendment Bill and of the Protection of Animals Bill); and Mr. Samuel Roberts of the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills (in respect of the Law Agents (Scotland) Bill [Lords]).

Report to lie upon the Table.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE C.

Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had added the following Ten Members to Standing Committee C (in respect of the Seeds Act (1920) Amendment Bill and the Protection of Animals Bill): Mr. Boothby, Colonel Sir George Courthope, Captain Dixon, Mr. Drewe, Sir Philip Richardson, Mr. John Robertson, Dr. Drummond Shiels, Major Sir Granville Wheler, Mr. Thomas Williams, and Mr. Edward Wood.

Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Ten Members to Standing Committee C (in respect of the Merchandise Marks Acts (1887 to 1911) Amendment Bill): Mr. A. V. Alexander, Mr. Burman, Sir Burton Chadwick, Mr. Smedley Crooke, Mr. Evan Davies, Sir Philip Dawson, Mr. Hannon, Mr. Jephcott, Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy, and Mr. Raine.

Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee C; Sir Henry Cowan: and had appointed in substitution: Captain O'Connor.

SCOTTISH STANDING COMMITTEE.

Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Fifteen Members to the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills (in respect of the Law Agents (Scotland) Bill [Lords]); the Lord Advocate, Lord Balniel, Mr. Bethel, Sir Henry Cowan, Major Crawfurd, Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth, Mr. Robert Morrison, Mr. Palin, Mr. Robert Richardson, Mr. West Russell, Dr. Simms, Colonel
Sinclair, Major Steel, Sir Victor Warrender and Mr. Windsor.

Reports to lie upon the Table.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to,

Marriages Provisional Order Bill, without Amendment.

Orders of the Day — CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS BILL.

Order read for Committee on the Widows', Orphans, and Old Age Contributory Pensions Bill.

The following Notice of Motion stood on the Order Paper in the names of Mr. RUNCIMAN and other hon. Members:
On going into Committee on. the Widows', Orphans', and Old Age Contributory Pensions Bill, to move, That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they have power so to amend the Bill as to put the scheme of pensions on a non-contributory basis.

Mr. SPEAKER: The Instruction on the Paper in the names of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Swansea (Mr. Runciman) and others is not in Order. So far as it proposes to empower the Committee to strike out the contributions of the employers and the employed persons it is unnecessary. The Committee can do that, if it pleases, without an Instruction.

Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: I understand that under the Money Resolution which has been passed by the House it would be competent for the Committee to discuss the question whether the beneficiaries should make a. contribution or not.

Mr. SPEAKER: That has nothing to do, as I conceive, with the Money Resolution passed by the House. The Money Resolution refers only to the Exchequer contribution. That, of course, stands as the House has left it.

Captain BENN: I understand, then, that it will be competent for the Committee to make the scheme non-contributory if they so desire, and therefore the Instruction is not required?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is what I have just said.

Bill considered in Committee.

[Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 1.—(Contributory Pensions for Widows, orphans and persons between the ages of 65 and 70.)

Mr. LEES-SMITH: I beg to move, in page 1, line 8, to leave out the words "the payment of contributions (including ".
4.0 P.M.
The purpose of this Amendment is that we may at the very beginning of the Committee discussion challenge the whole principle of contributions for pensions and summarise the objections that we have against them. The Order Paper is full of Amendments which will occupy many days calling attention to the innumerable anomalies and harshnesses which this Bill contains, and to its unjust treatment of large minorities among the contributors to the Bill. Throughout these debates we shall point out again and again that the injustices and the anomalies we are complaining of arise fundamentally from the contributory principle which is at the heart of the Bill. As a matter of fact, the main evil in this Bill is due to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. At the period when he decided that, as a preamble to this Bill, he would reduce the Income Tax and the Super-tax of the comfortable classes by £42,000,000, this Bill was committed to a series of harshnesses and anomalies which will create disappointment and disillusion among the masses of the people when the Bill is understood. The Minister of Health, during the course of the Second Reading Debate, argued that to have put this Bill upon a. non-contributory basis would have been a financial impossibility. I am not going to enter at length into the various figures which he gave, but his figures are disproved by the main summary in the Actuary's report on page 24. That table, with which of course the right hon. Gentleman is familiar, shows that the contributions paid by employers and employed under this Bill, which we say should be paid by the State, in the first full year will amount to £22,000,000; 20 years hence they will amount to £36,000,000, and in the last year of which the Actuary takes any account at all they will amount to £42,000,000. That justifies our contention that there would have been no need for the contributory system at all if the Chancellor of the Exchequer had left the Income Tax and Super-tax where they were, and had used this £42,000,000 for the purposes of this Bill.
The Minister of Health, in the Second Reading Debate, argued that this Bill, with its contributory principle, would encourage thrift and foresight among those who partake of its advantages. This argument that a compulsory system
of contributions encourages thrift appears to me the plainest fallacy. Thrift is a voluntary institution. Compulsory thrift is no thrift at all, and to impose compulsory contributions in the name of thrift is merely to impose a form of taxation. These contributions are a form of taxation, and the contributions of the workers are simply a poll-tax, such, I believe, as is still maintained in Kenya for the sake of African natives, but which has long been abandoned and obsolete in the financial system of this country.
Then you come to the contributions that are to be paid by the employers. I have not yet heard any answer from the Government Bench to the arguments which have been adduced against that system. What do they mean? Our contention is that this money should have been provided by the Income Tax and Super-tax.

The CHAIRMAN: It will not be possible for us to discuss the Budget again.

Mr. LEES-SMITH: I was not going to deal at any length with the Income Tax and Super-tax. I was merely going to contrast them with the contributions under this Bill, and to show that the Government would have obtained this money in that way with less injury to trade and industry. I was merely going to say that we were objecting to this system, not on account of any doctrine as between capitalism and Socialism, but because we believe that the contributory system of obtaining this money will impose the maximum disadvantage on trade and industry at this moment. We take the attitude that a tax is of no great disadvantage to trade. If it does not increase the standing charges of a trade, it does not increase the price which the traders have to charge and it does not handicap them in their competition with foreign rivals. That is the advantage of the Income Tax. It does not increase the standing charges, because the Income Tax is only imposed upon the profits which are left after the standing charges have been met. When we come to the system embodied in this Bill, however, it means that the standing charges in every business are increased at the rate of £1 per year for every man employed, and, in
particular, the standing charges are increased in our export trades where unemployment is specially concentrated at this moment and which are struggling against the competition of rivals who are able to undersell them in neutral markets.
What is the further consequence of this non-contributory principle? It is that all the merchants and the middlemen and the retailers, whom it is generally known probably, in spite of our general depression, had a better year last year than any year since the close of the War, will pay very little because they employ very little labour, and the entire interest-receiving and bond-holding parasitic class will not pay one halfpenny between them, because of the simple fact that, as they are not engaged in industry, they employ no labour at all. That summarises our reasons for our contention that the non-contributory system would not only have been juster and more generous as between rich and poor, but that it would have been better adapted and adjusted to the present needs of trade and industry.
Before I conclude, I wish to ask the Minister of Health whether he will deal, in particular, with one point at this stage of our Committee discussions. A large part of the intention of the Government on this Bill has been left in considerable doubt by some of the statements of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I am referring to what is going to be done between now and the close of the deficiency period. The Chancellor of the Exchequer made some general remarks which indicated that the Government were going to make some proposals with regard to the immediate future.

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Neville Chamberlain): What is the deficiency period to which the hon. Member is referring?

Mr. LEES-SMITH: I am referring to the deficiency period under the Unemployment Act of 1924. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in one of his speeches during the Budget Debates, said that he hoped that before this Pensions Bill passed away from this House a statement would be made that the Government would exercise their powers and authority to deal with the particular problem pre-
sented by the next few years. If the Government have a statement of that sort to make, it ought to be made now at the beginning of our discussions, so that we shall be able to conduct the remainder of our deliberations with full knowledge of what is proposed. I should like, in order to elucidate this matter, to ask the Minister of Health what now is the actual position in his estimates as to the end of this deficiency period. He himself spoke, during the Second Reading Debate on this Bill, about the end of the deficiency period, but, so far as I have been able to ascertain from the figures, the end of the deficiency period is not in sight, and all the estimates upon which the deficiency period was based have in practice broken down. I have been reading the report of the Actuary on the Unemployment Bill.

The CHAIRMAN: I presume that the hon. Member is going to relate this to the question of contributions under this Bill.

Mr. LEES-SMITH: I am saying this, because that is exactly what the Chancellor of the Exchequer suggested, and I may add that I think it will be very difficult to debate this Bill unless we can deal with the suggestions of the Government and with the speeches of the Minister of Health. The right hon. Gentleman himself, in his Second Reading speech, pointed out that at the end of the deficiency period there would be a reduction of contributions. Therefore, I think I am entitled to enter into certain calculations and to ask certain questions as to when the Government think that the end of the deficiency period will arrive.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member may suggest that as a line of argument, but he must not attempt to renew the whole of the discussion on this matter.

Mr. LEES-SMITH: I think you will find that I am going to give certain figures which have never been mentioned up to the present. We have been told that we are to look to the end of the deficiency period, and what I am pointing out is that all the calculations as to when that end was to be reached have broken down. The actuary, in his report, estimates that the end of the deficiency period will be in June of next year, but I maintain that all the calculations in that Report have been falsified by what has
subsequently happened. The actuary estimated that at this present moment there would be 1,000,000 unemployed, but there are 1,250,000. The actuary estimated that the fund during the last six months would have a surplus of £300,000, and that the debt to the Treasury would be reduced to below £8,000,000. All these figures have now been falsified. Therefore, the question I wish to ask, since all these calculations have broken down, is what are the right hon. Gentleman's calculations and when does he estimate that the deficiency period will be reached and the contributions will be lower?

Mr. AMMON: I rise to support the Amendment which has been submitted by my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith) and to emphasise one or two points which he has advanced and to bring forward one or two further objections. The object of the Amendment is to place the scheme on a non-contributory basis; in other words, to bring those who have fallen in the war of industry on precisely the same lines as those who have suffered during the War through which we have just passed. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in introducing his Budget, also made mention of this proposed scheme as one of the means whereby the Budget would be made more palatable to the country, but since then evidently he has, during the process of discussion in this House, found that his child has not developed along the lines he wanted, and he has left it as a foundling on the doorstep of the Minister of Health, and that right hon. Gentleman is going to do his best to nurse it into life. The proposals, as submitted to the House, do impose greater burdens on industry. Another point we have to observe is that it is also proposed in the process of time to take off the old age pension as a State insurance and make it a contributory pension. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his Budget speech, in endeavouring to gain our sympathy, said:
Most painful of all is the position of the young widow with several young children, left absolutely upon her own resources with a few pounds and a few belongings."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th April, 1925; "col. 71, Vol. 183.]
It was on behalf of such people that he said this scheme is being adumbrated,
yet at the same time when the opportunity was given to him to relieve these poor people of the burden of Death Duties on their small belongings, he turned it down, whilst giving larger benefits to those who have already enough and to spare. I will not, however, trespass further on that point.
The proposals now before us will impose a certain amount of taxation upon industry and upon the working people of this country. Those proposals could have been adequately met had the Chancellor of the Exchequer not taken a large amount of money and handed it over to the Super-tax payers. Industry and employed workmen are being asked to take over a burden that ought, rightly, to have been borne by the wealthy section of the community. It is for that purpose that we are asking that this relief should be given. The Chancellor of the Exchequer stated that the end of the deficiency period would be reached at the moment that the figure of unemployment had fallen to 800,000. One can understand why he is glad that he is not piloting this particular Bill through the House of Commons, because since he made that speech we are a long way further removed from the possibility of getting over the deficiency period than we were in April of last year. As far as we can see, having regard to the discussion that took place yesterday, the deficiency period is always going to be with us. We are going to be burdened with an increasing charge on industry and labour, and this is going to grow every decennial period for at least 40 or 50 years. A large burden is going to be super-added to the trials and difficulties already pressing upon industry, and we submit that it would be in the interests of the insured people, in the interests of the community as a whole, and it would make better for peace in industry if this matter were taken over wholly as a State charge and not placed upon those who are insured and upon the industrialists in the country.

Sir ALFRED MOND: I do not intend to cover the ground which was covered at some length in the Second Reading Debate, when the House decided that this Bill should be on a contributory basis; but I would like to restate the position
which we took up then, and to which we adhere. Our position is, that while, in general principle, we think that those who benefit should make some contribution to a scheme of this kind, we are equally convinced that in the present state of industry it is quite impossible to lay any further burdens either upon employers or upon the employed. That leads me to support the question which has been put to the Minister of Health by the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith) who referred to a speech made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer during the Budget Debates, which is very vividly in our minds, and in which, in dealing with this point, he indicated, realising the difficulty the Government were in, that some statement would be made on the point. I think it ought to be made now. It would very largely influence our opinion in regard to the votes we are to give if some statement could be made of the intentions of the Government.
I think it is generally agreed in the country—I do not know whether it is agreed in the Cabinet—that it is impossible to put what is really a large new standing charge on industry at the present time. Any such charge should have been deferred until, at any rate, the extra payments under the Unemployment Insurance Act have been reduced to normal, so that the contributions under this Bill would leave the standing charges where they are, and not make them any worse. That was what was indicated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his speech. We are anxious to learn whether the Government by this time have formulated any idea, because in the Press we have seen various indications of what the Government are proposing to do. There are many methods by which we could deal with this matter, but I will not enter into a discussion of them now. There is the so-called deficiency on unemployment insurance, which is largely a bookkeeping matter: money Lent by the Treasury to the Unemployment Insurance Fund, and the term of repayment could be spread over any period which the Treasury like to fix. It is because, for some reason that I have never understood, they have fixed an absurdly short date for repayment that these heavy contributions have been necessary.
The speeches that we have heard from the Mover and Supporter of the Amendment have been much on grounds which I and those associated with me, share, namely, that we cannot impose this new burden upon industry at the present time. We have an Amendment on the Paper, which will be reached later, which deals specifically with this point. If the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith) had limited his Amendment to that point, we might have found it easier to support it; but I do not see how we can accept the principle of making this whole scheme non-contributory, for two or three very good reasons. I do not think it would for acceptable to the country. No non-contributory scheme has ever been brought forward or suggested. We have contributory schemes under the national health insurance and under the unemployment insurance, and the contributory principle is well established in connection with friendly societies and trade union organisations, so that it is nothing new. If this Amendment were carried it would only end in wrecking the scheme and in not giving benefits either to the widows or to the people at 65, which we all wish them to have.

Sir GERALD STRICKLAND: I appeal to hon. Members generally, and more especially to hon. Members above the Gangway and to my right hon. Friend the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Snowden), who is an authority on finance, not to mix up politics with finance in connection with this question of pensions. The most brilliant feature of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's scheme which appealed to me was when he pointed out that by the Government insurance scheme he was giving to the workers, on account of the Government co-operation, much greater value for their money than could be obtained by insurance through any insurance company. That added value is a gift to the workers, and the creator of that value is the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with the Government power of organisation behind it. So much is given to the workers, and for that the Government should be given credit from every party in this House. That added value, which is the result of Government organisation, should not be minimised or treated with disrespect. For that reason, I think all parties should not press the argument against the contributory basis.
To put it briefly, a contribution supported by the Government scheme produces double the value that would otherwise arise. Moreover, I feel that the adoption of the gold standard and the lowering of prices—

The CHAIRMAN: I hope the hon. Member is going to relate these important matters directly to the subject of contributions.

Sir G. STRICKLAND: Entirely. Had I been allowed three more seconds to come to the point, that would have been very apparent. By that step, an added value has been given to the position of the workers, which adds to the contributions which the Government give indirectly towards this insurance. I think that is quite a fair point.

Mr. MARCH: I want to say a few words in support of the Amendment. It seems to me that running through the minds of most hon. Members is the idea that the workman has a little Klondyke into which he can keep dipping his hands and taking therefrom the contributions which are imposed upon him by the State for various things. Anyone would think that every workman who is going to contribute to this scheme is in full employment and getting a full and a good weekly wage. That is not so. For a long period under the Unemployment Insurance Act many casual workers have been very hardly hit, and they are going to be more hardly hit in connection with this scheme. The men now in casual employment round the docks and in some employers' yards have to work by the half-day, and very often they do not get more than a half-day, but they have to pay the full insurance contribution of 1s. 2d. [An HON. MEMBER: "No."] Yes they have. It is no use saying they have not. In addition, you are going to have a 4d. stamp attached, so that the total amount of the contribution will be 1s. 6d. That will be taking pretty nearly one-half of the wage that the man gets for his labour. Frequently the men are very fortunate if they get much more than a day or a day and a-half's work in a week. Therefore, these casual workers and the under-employed men are being hit all the time. We want to see whether some better arrangement could not be made whereby the casual workers who only do one or two day's work a week might be allowed to have
an exemption, if this non-contributory principle cannot be accepted altogether. I would like to see the Government accept this Amendment, so as to give the fullest freedom for all those who are unemployed or under-employed, so that they can have benefit in the same way as the old age pensioners have had.

Mr. HARNEY: I am in favour of the contributory basis, although there is a good deal to be said for making this scheme non-contributory, especially at the present time. The effect of making it non-contributory would be to distribute the burdens imposed over the whole community through taxation, and not placing them upon what I may call the vital organs of industry. It would also do away with the injustices that, superficially at all events, will follow from a contributory system. There may be two large employers. One may employ 1,000 men and run his business at a loss. Under this scheme, because he has a thousand men, he will have to add to his loss £900. The other man may employ only 100 men, and he may make a profit of £1,000. Under this scheme, he will only have to pay £90, though he is already making a profit of £1,000, whereas the man who is making a loss will have to pay £900.
I recognise all that and therefore, if it were not for some other considerations, I would vote in favour of a non-contributory basis. But you cannot have a non-contributory scheme without introducing these highly objectionable tests against which we have all spoken so strongly in connection with the old age pension, and if the right hon. Gentleman is now in a position to say, as he is, "I am going to do away with this means qualification, with this irritating inquisition, with the whole of these grievances which the old men and women have, I shall only be able to do it because already the discrimination of this class is determined by the contribution." He adopts then the simple rule, "I do not care what your means are so long as you come within the scheme. Those who pay in are those who draw out." There is another point. If you put it on a non-contributory basis it is very hard indeed to discriminate between the necessitous. I cannot see why a healthy man of 65 is more entitled to sympathy and assistance than an ailing man of 45.
I cannot see why a healthy widow is more entitled to assistance than the wife of a cripple or a wife who has been deserted, and if you base the assistance of the State upon the needs of the members of the community then you would not know where you are going to stop.
Therefore, the only sound way is to have a contribution whereby you say to the people, who are presumably of the class that will be necessitous, "You will get an opportunity of contributing, and your contributions shall be the mark entitling you to the payment." I am sorry, therefore, that, although I sympathise deeply with all that has been said both on Second Reading and now as to distributing the burden over the whole community, still when you weigh the pros against the cons one is forced to the conclusion that the only way you can make it workable is to have a reasonable contribution, and the making of a contribution has this advantage, that it has with it no stigma of charity. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about the dole?"] The dole does not carry any stigma. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes!"] I am very sorry to hear that it is thought that the dole does, because I was of opinion that these poor fellows whom I see in my own constituency standing round the Employment Exchange had at all events the consoling thought. "We are not in the humiliating position of being mendicants. We are men who are entitled to what we are getting. "But if you regulate the assistance that is given by the State in such a way that it is poured out without a man being conscious that he has poured anything in, it will be very hard indeed to rob him of the sentiment of something being given for nothing.

Mr. J. JONES: What about the Prince of Wales?

HON. MEMBERS: He works hard.

Mr. HARNEY: Whether he works hard or not, there are always special allowances for those at the top.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: I would not have taken part in this discussion were it not for the argument of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carmarthen (Sir A. Mond), that this scheme ought to be contributory because we have established in this country a national health insur-
ance scheme which is on a contributory basis. May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that there are other schemes in operation in this country which are non-contributory and which aim at covering practically the same type of cases as this Bill is intended to deal with. I will mention one or two. There is no contribution called from the workman in respect to insurance for workmen's compensation. When the idea of workmen's compensation was introduced into this House, it was argued then that workpeople ought to pay contributions in order to cover accident risks. We have got beyond that stage now, and it is idle to say that there are no social insurance schemes on a non-contributory basis. I will give another instance. There are no contributions asked for the moment in respect to old age pensions. This Bill, however, demands a contribution in order to meet that in future. So far as I understand it, a man when he joins the Army or the Navy is not called upon for a contribution in respect of any pension which he will receive when retiring from the Forces. [HON. MEMBERS: "He is!"] I understand he is not.
I want to combat the idea that it is necessary to call for a contribution from a workman simply because he is to get benefits. No workman is ever called on to pay a contribution in order that he may receive treatment in a hospital for infectious or contagious diseases. He gets that provision from the community without being called on for any contribution from his wages. I have an objection even stronger than any of those to a contributory basis for this scheme. Let us see what is called for from his wages from the average male worker at the moment. In the first place he has to pay 5d. a week under the National Health Insurance scheme, 9d. under the Unemployment Insurance scheme, and 4d. under this scheme; and of course he will be called upon to pay his trade union contribution as he ought to do. That will mean a contribution of about 2s. a week from his wages. The State should not therefore burden him further by asking him to contribute for the purposes of this Bill. He has got, in addition, death insurance and his friendly society contributions to pay.
I object to the principle that a widows' pension scheme should be established on
a contributory basis. This idea of a widows' pension scheme came from America. Many good things have come from there. I have here copies of the laws relating to all the States in the United States of America where such schemes are in operation, and there is not a single one of those States, or the Scandinavian countries, where these schemes have been in operation for years, which has established a widows' pension scheme that calls for any contribution from the workman.

Viscountess ASTOR: Is it not the fact that in the United States of America it is not a widows' pension scheme at all, but that it was started for the juvenile delinquents with the object of catering for these children? I believe that the hon. Member got his information from the same place as I did to-day.

Mr. DAVIES: May I read the first two lines of the Pensions Code of the State of Ohio? It declares:
Mothers' pensions; allowances for the support of women whose husbands are dead or become permanently disabled by reason of physical or mental infirmity.

Viscountess ASTOR: Will the hon. Gentleman take another State, the State of New York?

Mr. DAVIES: I will not be side-tracked from my argument. Widows' pensions schemes have been established, if I remember rightly, in nearly 40 States of the United States of America and in most of the Scandinavian countries. Those schemes have been in operation for many years, and this is the first Government in history which has ever deigned to call for contributions in this connection. I object to this scheme on that ground, which is probably the strongest ground of all. I know that the right Ron. Gentleman the Minister for Health will say that, if the scheme was non-contributory, it could not be a pensions scheme, but a charitable one. I am not influenced in the least by that view, because all payments made by the State from Treasury sources are not regarded as charity by any means.
I pass, if I may, to another point. I object to the working people being called on to contribute towards this scheme on another ground. The Noble Lady gave a hint as to the reason for the existence
of mothers' pensions in the United States of America—that it was first established because it was thought that the State would gain financially by the payment of widows' and children's allowances.

Viscountess ASTOR: Children's, not widows'.

Mr. DAVIES: If the Noble Lady has seen the papers and has read them as I have done, she will find that these schemes differ very much as between one State and another. But I want to pass on to the point that these schemes in other countries have been established because by the payment from State funds of pensions and allowances to widows and children the whole community has benefited. It has always been assumed that the State would gain financially, and the argument was on these lines The Judge in the children's Court listened to cases of neglected and delinquent children, and he found that a considerable proportion of such children came from homes where the father was absent for some reason or other. Then the Judge declared that the State should take interest in such children and make grants for their maintenance, and thereby save the cost of those children going to institutions such as Borstal, industrial or reformatory schools. The Chancellor of the Exchequer made it clear to us the other day that there would be a saving in the rates by the adoption of this scheme. Consequently I say that if the community is going to gain financially by the adoption of this scheme, it means that the worker out of his wages is going to help to reduce the rates and taxes.
I have had something to do with the administration of the National Health Insurance scheme, and I have often wondered why the State is not contributing as much to the funds of this scheme as it contributes to the National Health Insurance scheme. I have never seen the percentage worked out, but I would like to know what are the proportions paid by the State in percentage form towards the benefits under this scheme and towards those under National Health Insurance Acts.
I have also taken some interest in the subject of widows' pensions. I had the honour some years ago of moving a Motion in this House in favour of these pensions on a non-contributory basis.
This scheme, I hope, and all schemes of the kind, are adopted because of the compassion of the community for the widow and the fatherless children. I trust, therefore, that the Government in this case is not going to exploit that compassion, not going to call upon the people to contribute towards what I think ought to be the duty of the State as such. What is going to happen is this: You will place upon industry, upon the wages of the workers in the main, a charge which ought definitely to fall upon the Income Tax payers.
I trust that we shall go to a division on what is, after all, the fundamental part of this Measure—that men and women employed in the workshops and mines and factories shall suffer deductions from their wages in order that they might say to themselves that their dependents shall be saved from poverty on their death. I think that the Government in proposing a contributory basis for the scheme is callous and mean. If the Bill becomes law I hope that the day will come when a more humane Government will take office and change the whole system.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: In the echoes of the last speech we see the real purpose of this Amendment. This is not a business Amendment; it is not a serious or a real Amendment. It is merely a demonstration intended to lead up to a Division, the results of which may be utilised hereafter at some election.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: It is not right that we should be insulted in that fashion by a statement that we are not sincere and that we are playing a game for an election. The right hon. Gentleman is mistaken. We are not playing a game.

The CHAIRMAN: I seem to remember similar statements from all parties.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Apparently it is perfectly legitimate for an hon. Member on the Front Bench opposite to accuse the whole of the Party on this side of being callous and mean, but we must not offer the slightest criticism of them. What is the real position? We have passed the Second Reading of this Bill, after discussing whether it should be a contributory or a non-contributory scheme. We have subsequently passed a Financial Resolution, which curtails or limits the contribution of the Exchequer to an
amount which is based upon the assumption that there will be contributions under the scheme. Now an Amendment is moved to take away the contribution. If we do take away the contributions and do not increase the amount which is paid by the Exchequer, it is quite obvious that the next thing we have to do is to reduce the benefits. There is no limit, apparently, to the generosity of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, because I notice that not only is there an Amendment on the Paper practically to double the benefits for which no contributions are to be paid, but that a further Amendment proposes to exclude any contributions from the Exchequer at all. Hon. Members opposite have already a certain reputation for conjuring tricks, but to get double the benefits without any contributions from anyone is their most successful endeavour up to the present. The real fact is that we have to choose between a contributory scheme and no scheme at all. I have just taken out some figures to show the Committee what it would mean if we were able to make this a non-contributory scheme, with the benefits mentioned in the Bill. The cost runs from £2,750,000 in the current year up to £41,000,000 in 1935, £62,000,000 in 1955, and £66,000,000 in 1965.

Mr. D. GRENFELL: Does that include the whole scheme of the Bill?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: That includes the whole scheme of the Bill. It does not include, of course, the cost of old age pensions under the existing Act. It includes only the additional cost which will be incurred under this Bill. What I wanted to remind the Committee of was that you cannot take one particular item in the cost of our social services and say, "If you had not taken so much off the Income Tax you might have paid for this." The total of our resources is limited, and what you take for one purpose you cannot use for another. In regard to old age pensions, the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget speech, pointed out that he had discovered that there was to be a big, unexpected increase in the charges upon the Exchequer owing to the old age pensions under the existing Act. If you add the two together, that is to say, the cost of old age pensions under the Act, and the old age pensions and widows' pen-
sions under this Bill, you get up to enormous figures. The cost would be £29,700,000 this year, in 1935 it would rise to £77,000,000, in 1945 to £103,000,000, in 1955 to £117,000,000, and in 1965 to £123,000,000 a year.

Miss WILKINSON: Has the right hon. Gentleman made deductions from those figures for the saving on war pensions and other services that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had in mind when he was stating what the cost would be?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: What I am pointing out is what would be the cost to the Exchequer of the present Old Age Pensions scheme, plus the cost of the present Bill on a non-contributory basis, and I say that the amount would go up to 123 millions. You can take off war pensions from that, and you would get a saving. But even then the figures come to something very large indeed, and, whatever you give to a social service, you must remember will not be available for any other social service. It is no use to go to other countries and to pick out particular items in their social legislation and say that they are what we should have. Other countries have not all the things that we have. A country must adapt itself to what it can do in the way of social services. The United States are much richer than we are, and they may be able to afford things that we cannot afford. The general point I desire to make is that each country has to look after its own problems. Take the case of the pensions in America, to which allusion has been made. I have not seen the papers quoted, which, presumably, have been circulated quite recently, but I had an opportunity of seeing some papers on this subject a considerable time ago, and I recollect one thing which struck me at the time, namely, that in the cases where pensions or allowances are paid the very strictest inquiry has to be made into each case, and even with that inquiry there has been complaint made in certain States that the pensions and allowances have been abused. The great merit of this scheme is that you can do away with the irritating, exasperating and humiliating inquiry—an advantage which outweighs many of the so-called injustices and anomalies which hon. Members opposite profess to find in this Bill.
There is another point to which the Mover of the Amendment addressed himself, and which was repeated by the right hon. Member for Carmarthen (Sir A. Mond). He said that allusions have been made to the possibility of some reduction in the contributions exacted from industry in respect of Unemployment Insurance, and a demand was made that I should make a clear statement on the subject. The Government are not going to run away from anything that they have said on that matter. I have been examining, as I said on the Second Reading of this Bill, the whole question, to see what can be done, and the Government's proposals will be formulated in the shape of a Bill. I had hoped that that Bill would have been printed by now. It will be in print in the course of this week, and then hon. Members will see for themselves exactly what it is that we are proposing to do. In view of the fact that the Bill is being printed. I do not think it would be proper for me to enter into a discussion of what it entails. I can only give the Committee an assurance that we have been able to see our way to mitigate the burdens on industry in the matter of contributions towards Unemployment Insurance, and I suggest to my right hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen that, whether the contribution be 4d. or 3d. or 2d., that really is not a question which should decide his attitude towards this Amendment. The difference between these figures is not one upon which (he existence of industry depends. That statement is all that I need make.

5.0 P.M.

Mr. WHEATLEY: The right hon. Gentleman began by telling us that if the scheme under this Bill were non-contributory he would have to reduce the benefits. Then he proceeded to prove that, and gave us figures, which I was not able to follow sufficiently closely, to understand the years to which they applied. The first figure was £2,750,000 per annum, the next, after a long period, was £41,000,000, and in 1965, he told us, the obligation on the State would amount to £66,000,000. He asked us to assume that the State to-day could not bear £2,750,000, and that in the year 1965, with all the rapid improvements that are taking place in the production of wealth, the State would be so poor that it could not bear an additional annual burden for this purpose of
£66,000,000. I think there are very few people outside his own immediate followers who will agree with that estimate of the State's financial powers. One of my hon. Friends was good enough to interject the remark that the right hon. Gentleman was making no allowance for the savings to be made on War pensions. But may I remind the right hon. Gentleman, that when the Chancellor of the Exchequer was introducing his Budget, he placed a great deal of weight on the savings that were to accrue in respect of War pensions, and he reminded the House that the nation will save so much on War pensions in the future, that it will be in a better position than it is to-day to meet the obligations of this scheme. This year the nation would, I think, be asked to meet an additional burden of £2,750,000. It would have been interesting to have been told by the right hon. Gentleman how much of the £66,000,000 which he thinks the State would have to bear in 1965, would have been met out of the savings of War pensions that would have. taken place by that year. I think he forgot, in going out of his way to prove the burden that this would be on the State, that he was at the same time proving the burden it is going to place on the poor of this country. He proved the two things at the same time. Admittedly, the burden is great, and some section of the population has to face the burden, but the point the House of Commons has to consider is which section of the community is the better able to bear it. Are the poor, who are to be asked to contribute to this scheme, in a better financial position than the people to whom the right hon. Gentleman's friend made a gift of £42,000,000 for this year alone in the Budget which has just passed this House? That is the question. This year this would have cost us £2,750,000. This year we throw away £42,000,000. We give £10,000,000 of that to people with incomes—

The CHAIRMAN: The right hon. Gentleman will see that if this line of argument be allowed, some hon. Gentleman on my right may say that the whole cost, or a great part of it, might be found out of tariffs, and another hon. Member might say a great part might be met out of the taxation of site values of land.

Mr. WHEATLEY: On that point of Order, may I remind you that ever since this question was introduced to the House, it has been associated with the finance of the Budget, and that the right hon. Gentleman himself has not been entirely free in his remarks from making that association? I am submitting to you that the point we have to consider here is whether the State, or the poor and industry, should make up the necessary finance of this scheme.

The CHAIRMAN: The right hon. Gentleman would be perfectly entitled to say that the State should bear this burden, but when he says it should be borne out of incomes, or that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should not have granted certain remissions, that would lead to one endless controversy alien to this Bill. It might be in order on Second Reading, but not on this Amendment.

Mr. WHEATLEY: I will try to keep within your ruling by reminding the right hon. Gentleman where the money could be found, without going to the pockets of the poor. There are in this country at the moment a certain number of people whose incomes are in excess of £2,000 a year.

The CHAIRMAN: That argument cannot be allowed, because, as I say, other hon. Members will indicate other sources, and then we should be quite wide of the mark. The right hon. Gentleman may argue that the State should assume the whole of this burden, but, when it comes to ways and means, it cannot be in order on this Amendment to review the fiscal system of the country.

Mr. WHEATLEY: May I remind you that the right hon. Gentleman, in the course of his remarks, told us that we must have a Bill based on contributions, or no Bill at all, and what he asked the Committee to assume from that was that if he did not get his revenue from these contributions, there was no other source of revenue. Surely, therefore, it is quite in order for me to remind the right hon. Gentleman, in his state of darkness regarding the condition of this country, which he painted in black colours compared with lands that are far away, that there are in this distressful country very valuable little corners in which hoards of money could be discovered by an
industrious Chancellor, and while I dare not mention, I suppose, the people with over £2,000 a year—

The CHAIRMAN: The right hon. Gentleman would be in order in saying that this money should be found from the general resources of the country, rather than the contributions of beneficiaries, but when he begins to indicate this or that source from which it might be found, it is really going back on the Budget discussions, and would be quite endless, because other hon. Members could suggest various sources of revenue.

Mr. WHEATLEY: I will not attempt to draw the Committee and you, Sir, into an entanglement. I will not pursue the point further, except to say that when the country awakens to the folly of having put the present Government in power, and returns a Government that is more sympathetic to the poor, that Government will have no difficulty in finding this money, without putting the burden on the poor. There was another point made in support of his proposal by the right hon. Gentleman—I think it was stated also from the Liberal Benches— that if you make this a non-contributory scheme you will have all those obnoxious inquiries into the conditions of the poor which we are all so anxious to avoid. Under this scheme, not a single inquiry into the conditions of the poor that is taking place to-day will be removed. In order to convince this Committee, or any reasonable person, that the poor under this scheme will be placed m a position where they will be free from the inspector, the right hon. Gentleman requires to prove that a widow can live on 10s. a week, or that the children of a widow or orphans can be maintained on the allowances laid down in the Bill. He can, of course, do nothing of the kind, and as it is impossible, and as it will be impossible, for them to live on the sums provided for in this Bill, they will require to go elsewhere, as they have at present, and when they go elsewhere, they will have to undergo the inquiry, inspection and investigation to which they are now subjected, with this difference, that the Minister of Health, who is the chief guardian of the poor in this country, having laid it down that, in his opinion, they are amply provided for
in this Bill, they will require to answer many more questions than they do now in order to satisfy the inspectors in his Department. I think the case that the right hon. Gentleman made against the Amendment was as unconvincing and unsympathetic as could be, and we shall press the Amendment to a division.

Sir J. MARRIOTT: The right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down alluded to that happy day when the country will awaken to the folly of putting the present Government into power. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I anticipated those cheers. I should like to say to hon. Gentlemen opposite that I, at any rate, am one of those—and I speak on this particular point with some little knowledge—who are convinced that the country put this Government in power very largely for the purpose of bringing forward the scheme which we are considering at the present time. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Very largely for this purpose. I am not going to follow hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite into the details which they have presented to the Committee. The only point I desire to urge is this. The Amendment is, in effect, an Amendment for the destruction and rejection of this Bill, and I hope that the country will note that an Amendment, which is deliberately designed to wreck the whole scheme, has been proposed by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite.
We have it on the authority of the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health that the whole framework of this Bill has been constructed—and by giving a Second Reading to the Bill the House has assented to the principle—on a contributive basis. I want to say more than that. I myself, for the last year or two, have taken some modest, some little part in commending this principle to the country at large. I have spoken on it in many places, and on this particular point I do speak with some knowledge. I am absolutely convinced that, if those for whom hon. Gentlemen opposite claim particularly to represent were consulted, they themselves would be in favour of the contributory principle. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I am quite certain of it. They want to escape from the difficulties, the intricacies of non-contributory schemes. One hon. Gentleman opposite referred to
the hospitals. I have some little knowledge of hospital administration, and I know that more and more the local hospitals of this country are putting themselves on what is essentially a contributory basis. They are framing schemes, which are eagerly welcomed by the poor people of the districts of this country, for small and regular contributions to the finance of the local hospitals by means of village clubs, and so on. The people of this country are very much more self-respecting in these matters than some hon. Gentlemen would like us to suppose. They desire to make contributions, very often from very small means—I have in my mind rural villages where small contributions, it may be a penny a week, are being made to local hospital funds regularly, and with a sense, I was going to say, of exaltation in the minds of the people who make these contributions.
Therefore, I, at any rate, am one of those who most strongly support the Minister of Health in his determination that this Bill shall be on a contributory basis. But I support that principle most of all for this reason, that we are either going to have this Bill on a contributory basis, or we are not going to have the Bill at all. Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite must take the responsibility for this Amendment. If it is carried it means the destruction of the Bill. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Yes, quite emphatically it means the destruction of the Bill. Hon. and right hon. Members opposite must accept the responsibility for the logical consequence, and the Parliamentary consequence of their own proposal. I, for one, am not prepared to see the Bill destroyed.

Mr. G. THORNE: On a point of Order. I wish to ask, Mr. Chairman, whether a Division on this Amendment will prejudice a discussion and a Division upon the Amendment in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Sir A. Mond) and others—in Clause 9, page 9, line 233, at end, to add the following new Sub-section:
(3) The provisions of this Section shall not take effect until the deficiency period, as defined in Section sixteen of the Unemployment Insurance (No. 2) Act of 1921 has terminated, and the weekly contributions of employers and employed for the purposes of unemployment have been fixed in accordance with Section four of the Unemployment
Insurance Act, 1923, at rates not higher than the maxima prescribed in the First Schedule to that Act.

The CHAIRMAN: No, I do not think that Amendment will be in any way prejudiced. All the Committee will have decided, if they reject the Amendment now under consideration, is that there shall be some contribution, but that will not prevent an Amendment being proposed which seeks to delay the operation of the contribution.

Mr. ROBERT YOUNG: It is perfectly true that on the Second Reading of this Bill the House determined that this scheme was to be contributory, but that does not preclude us from pointing out facts in relation to the contributory principle which ought to be considered. We have been told that if we adopt a non-contributory scheme the amount to be paid will increase at a great rate in a given number of years. I do not think that is a fair statement, and if we are to have statements of that kind we ought to have figures showing exactly what the cost will be. It is not only a question of the saving of war pensions. If this scheme means anything at all, it is going to save large sums to ratepayers, local authorities, charitable institutions, and so forth throughout the country. I hold the opinion that when these pensions are paid, whatever the widows and orphans get will be saved in other directions, and the cost to the nation, speaking generally, will not be very heavy. We have a right to protest that the circumstances of the time have not been taken into account in devising this contributory scheme. Almost all those who will benefit by the scheme are people who have received no concession during the past few weeks to assist them in paying the contributions. Nothing has been given to them out of the Budget.
We know the state of the country. We know that large numbers of people are getting very small wages, and some of them are working only a few days a week, yet all will be called upon to contribute to this fund, which in itself will be a heavy liability upon them. We have also a right to protest that industry should be called upon to pay a share which, in the end, will come out of the pockets of the workers, because it will be looked upon by the employers as an addition to wages. This contributory scheme is nothing else but taxation imposed
upon those who are brought within its scope, and it is taxation applied by the Government at a time when it is relieving taxation on the well-to-do, and on those who are better able to pay. Reference has been made to the proportion to be paid by the Government towards the scheme. I should like to know exactly where we stand in that respect. It may seem a strange thing to say, but I am very much afraid of this scheme on the actuarial basis, in so far as the workers are concerned. These actuarial schemes seem to be worked out in such a way that enormous sums of money are accumulated over and above the benefits paid. In connection with the Health Insurance scheme large funds are in the hands of the Government; the approved societies themselves are not allowed to invest these funds as they would like, the Government causing them to invest so much in one particular direction, while the Government itself invests so much in other directions. How far is this scheme going to cause enormous sums to be aggregated in the future, so that the State may ultimately shift off its responsibility for contributing in any shape or form?
Why did not the Government on this question of a contributory scheme stick to the lines already laid down in this country? Why have they introduced a principle which is altogether divorced from employment? What has industry to do with old age? As far as I know the only connection is that in many cases industry makes men prematurely old; but you are not doing anything for the prematurely old in this scheme. Industry often kills men before they can be called old, but you are not doing much to meet that case. Why should industry under present conditions be called upon to contribute towards old age pensions at 65? It is not responsible for a man becoming 65. We all become 65 after the same lapse of time, if we live. Industry has nothing to do with it, and if the Government had been just in this matter, since they were determined to have a contributory scheme in regard to sickness and unemployment, they should have been consistent enough to keep old age pensions entirely apart from the scheme and have prevented them from being charged upon the wages of the workers and the returns of industry.
For these reasons I protest against the contributory scheme. I am aware that no discussion will determine otherwise than in favour of this scheme being contributory, but we believe all the supposed difficulties mentioned in connection with a non-contributory scheme are fanciful and unlikely to materialise. The cheapest way of providing pensions would be to go along lines whereby you could use the ordinary machinery of the State without any great addition of servants in order to work that machinery, so as to get in the amount necessary to meet the charge for pensions. From the point of view of the worker who is receiving no benefit from the Budget, from the point of view of the employer who is having a heavy charge put on his industry at a time when he cannot stand it, and from the point of view that old age pensions should have been kept distinct and separate from sickness and unemployment, I shall vote for the principle of a non-contributory scheme, although I am anxious for widows' pensions.

Mr. CHARLES EDWARDS: The right hon. Gentleman the Minister, as is his habit when he speaks, imputed motives. He imputed to hon. Members on this side of the House the motive of election purposes for putting down this Amendment There is nothing in that suspicion. We would prefer the Minister to accept the Amendment, and he could take all the credit for it, and use it as much as he liked at elections. If I were imputing motives, I should say that the Government have brought forward this Bill in order to establish a contributory pensions scheme, knowing that if we were in power we would establish a scheme of a different kind, on a non-contributory basis, and that it would be very difficult to go back upon that scheme once it had been established. I am supporting this Amendment because I think it right and not for election purposes. If this scheme were sufficient to maintain people without troubling the Poor Law; if it were sufficient to induce people of 65 to withdraw from industry, and make way for the younger people who are unemployed, then whether contributory or non-contributory, I should support it. But it does neither of these things. It is not sufficient to maintain anybody. It will induce no old person to withdraw from
industry, and it will leave unemployment just as it is to-day.
The contributions paid by the workers at present are very heavy. There are contributions out of wages for hospitals, doctors, institutes, and there are various other payments which make up a large amount—to the worker—in the week. Another payment is now to be added on. It will be imposed at the expense of many useful contributions at present paid by the workers; out of sheer necessity they will have to cut down their payment in other respects or withdraw some of them altogether in order to meet this new demand. We are told that industry is tottering; still another burden is to be placed upon it. No contributory scheme can be a fair one which relieves the one section of the community best able to pay. The hon. and learned Member for South Shields (Mr. Harney) was concerned lest the workers should be taking something out of a fund without paying in. He need not 'fear. The people who produce the wealth will pay their share; they will have to contribute without any doubt. I support the Amendment, as I say, not for election purposes, but believing that it is the proper thing, and that a scheme should be brought into existence which would require payments from everyone in the community properly entitled to make those payments, instead of relieving those who are best able to pay.

Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON: The hon. Member for York (Sir J. Marriott), in rebutting this Amendment, suggested that if it were carried the scheme would be wrecked. I submit that if it were possible to carry this Amendment, the same force which carried it would be able to bring in a new Financial Resolution, which would place this scheme on another and more desirable footing. I support the Amendment because, following on the old-fashioned Liberal lines of the original Old Age Pensions Act, it proceeds on a non-contributory basis, and I have heard no argument to show why we should change from that sound principle. It seems to me at this time most unfortunate to place upon industry, whether on employers or employed, any additional burden, and I am astonished that this Government of all Governments which is so concerned with the revival of trade and industry should further handicap trades and industries which are
already struggling. Recently the manager of a steel works in the North of England stated that this Bill would involve on that particular works a new cost of £12,000 a year, and the same thing applies throughout the length and breadth of the land. It is impossible at present for industry to stand further burdens. Moreover it is inequitable in its incidence with regard to workers of all sections. An employer who employs a large number of men or who causes the employment of a large number of men is penalised. You have the case of the large manufacturer who employs 1,000 or more, and who will have to meet a heavy charge in consequence. You have another man who may be making as large a sum, or larger, a professional man or a merchant, who employs a mere handful of men possibly, and all of whose employés are above the insurance limit, and he will contribute nothing to the scheme and continue drawing a larger profit than the manufacturer who is burdened by this Bill. Therefore, so far as industry is concerned, it hits very unequally the various sections of the community. If it was a non-contributory scheme, those who are not working in industry would contribute their fair share of what, after all, is a communal charge, and it is not right that industry, because it is industry, should be burdened with the cost of old age pensions, or with the cost of orphans in the way that this Bill will bring about. I submit that what the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health has told us as to the intentions of the Government and the relief they are going to give to industry does not justify us in supporting this scheme, and that before we vote on this Amendment, we are entitled to know more definitely what the Government's real proposals are, because the one is linked up with the other. We cannot weigh the incidence of this particular Clause unless we know what they are doing in regard to unemployment insurance generally. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry, who, I see, is bursting to speak, will be able to enlighten the Committee on this very important point before we go to a Division.

Mr. BROAD: I wish to add my word of protest against this scheme being placed on a contributory basis. The Minister has told us about the many claims there are on the State for meeting
social services, but I wonder if he realises the many claims there are on the small wage-earners in this country, and what they mean in their full incidence, and if he realises that the man who, through his fear of possible poverty in the future, would starve his children in order to make provision for a possible old age, when his income does not allow him to feed his children properly week by week, is not exercising a virtue, but a vice. I say that to exercise thrift and make provision for a possible future at the expense of feeding your children is not a thing which should be commended, but when it comes to a State which says to the worker: "No matter what the demands of your family may be, or how hard you find it to provide them with bread day by day, you have to contribute to an old age pension or a widow's pension, which may not be your lot at all," then, I say, it ceases to be the vice of the individual and becomes the crime of the State, and I say that this imposition of this tax on the wage of the worker is a mean and despicable crime. I have known men with mechanics' wages in the years gone by, with their travelling expenses and big families. When it comes to Saturday, there is the. question of boots for the youngsters to keep their feet dry, and on Tuesday their money has gone, and the dinner of many a working man is a walk round the streets, and the same on Thursday and Friday, till they get their money, and if, in addition to that, you take this contribution, it seems to me that you have gone very much too far.
If you think you have the right, as a community, to compel the workers to do things like this, at all events, you have as a responsibility to see that the thing that you insist on the workers doing is a reasonable thing, and I say that this is not reasonable. With your three insurances, there is 1s. 6d. a week to pay directly from the wage packet of the worker, but I think every economist here will recognise that the other Is. 7d. per week is going to come from the worker's wages also, and that is 3s. Id. a week, without all the other contingencies, such as having to go to a doctor for your children or your wife. It will be a case of giving your wife a chance to die without medical care, because you are paying some pence per week to provide her with a pension in case you die first. If you
impose this as a responsibility on the workers, at all events, there should be some security that they will get the benefit. For the workers of this country, with unemployment as precarious as we have had it in the last few years and as it is likely to continue in the future, I say that this is not a certainty, but a lottery. Take any insurance scheme. You have to have some regulations as to continuity of payment, and a good many hon. Members opposite will know what very great profits are made by industrial insurance societies, not out of the provision of benefits from the premiums, but from the lapsed policies. Many a worker may pay in from 16 to 65 years of age, may pay for 50 years, and then, forsooth, because, according to the scheme of the right hon. Gentleman, for the last three years they have not had fairly regular employment, the whole of the contributions that they have paid in for 50 years will be set on one side.
Two years after this scheme is in full operation—as far as old age pensions are concerned, that comes in 1928—and, taking the figures in the actuary's statement, in 1930 there will be about half of the men over 65 years of age entitled to an old age pension. Those hon. Members who are employers know what chance of employment they give to the worker over 60 years of age. It is only casually, when trade is particularly busy, that the man over 60 years of age is employed, and in addition to that he is the last taken on and the first put off, but, because of the last three years, if he has not qualified by 39 weeks' contributions for each year, he will be deprived of his benefit, and I say that such a gamble is a two-to-one chance of an old age pension. Take, again, the widow's pension. The census of 1921 showed that we had 1,800,000 widows in this country, and, according to the Government's own computation, 206,000 of those will get a pension next year as widows. The rest will never get a widow's pension, unless they get married again and are so unfortunate as to lose their second husband. A nine-to-one chance of a widow's pension next year is not good enough to make us approve of such a scheme. The maintenance of the widow, we say, is not the responsibility of the poor but of the whole of the community, and the burden
ought not to be placed upon the poor. Again, we say that the responsibility for making provision for old age is not the responsibility of the poor but of the whole community.
Take the case of the agricultural worker, who in some counties received as little as 23s. or 24s. a week last year. Thank goodness, we had an interval of a different Government, and as a result of that their wages have now gone up to something in the neighbourhood of 30s. a week, but if a man has 30s. a week and has to pay out of that for Health Insurance and this Pensions Insurance, those who know the conditions of life of workers in the agricultural areas and the claims that the agriculturists, the farmer and the landlord, are making that they cannot afford a penny more in the wages of these people, will realise that, if their contention is right, every penny of this is to come out of the wages of the agricultural worker. We have our fresh air funds to take the children from the towns out into the country, but, from what I have seen of the children in some of the agricultural villages in this country, I think we want a fund to bring them to live in some of our slums in London for a few days, so as to get the standard of living there, because they look miserably lean and thin as a result of their miserable conditions of life; and the Minister would impose a further tax on these people!
I say that, from the moral point of view, as to where the responsibility lies, from the point of view of where the ability to pay lies—we know it does not lie with the. worker, but with the general community—from the point of view of security of getting the benefit under this insurance scheme, from the point of view of the adequacy of the provision made, this is an impossible scheme. We find under this scheme that the widow of next year, whose husband was not qualified because the contributions were not paid or because he happened to be a small trader on his own account, may have to turn out in industry and try to maintain children, without any pension at all, and she will have to pay this tax, while the widow of 20 years of age, whose husband dies after January next year, a strong, healthy young woman, who has never left industry and has, it may be, a good business, without children, is to have a pension of 10s, a week for the rest of her life at the expense of the other poor
widow. I say that these great social services which we have now regarded as a national responsibility should be met from the national point of view, and not put on such a, miserably mean and despicable basis as is the whole of this scheme, inadequate in its benefits, uncertain in its provision that they will be obtained, and imposing a burden which it is impossible to bear. From every point of view, I think the Committee, if they think these things out, not from a, party point of view, but from a humanitarian point of view, will agree that when we go into the Division Lobby we ought to have a majority for the Amendment.

Mr. STAMFORD: I think the issue raised by the Amendment now before the Committee is a perfectly simple issue. It is as to whether the cost of this scheme should properly be regarded as a cost to be borne by a section of the community, or whether it ought to be regarded as a cost properly to be borne by the whole of the community. So far as I am concerned, and so far as the Members on this side of the House are concerned, we believe that the cost of a scheme like this, which is to make provision for orphans and for aged people, should be regarded as a cost that ought to be shouldered by the whole of the members of the community. Take the case of the orphans under this Bill. No one, I think, can argue that there is any special responsibility which industry ought to carry, or which the people employed in industry ought to carry, to make provision for children who have the misfortune to be left in that position. I think it would be utterly impossible for any Member on the other side of the House, or for the Ministers who are in charge of this Bill, to. state a case for the consideration of this Committee why employers in industry or workpeople engaged in industry should in any sense be regarded as specially responsible for the maintenance of orphans, as is contemplated in this particular Measure.
Allusion has already been made to the position of the large industrial employer and the smaller industrial employer. I am not going to stress that comparison now, but I am absolutely at a loss to understand the reason which prompts the Government to come to the House of Commons and urge that, in making provision for orphan children, there should
be a specially large contribution laid on the large employer of labour, whatever his financial position may be, and that, there should be a smaller contribution laid on the smaller employer of labour, again irrespective of his financial position.
Turn now from the case of the orphans to the case of the aged veterans of industry. This Bill proposes that contributions should be levied on the two partners in industry in order to make provision for the aged people who up to now, so far as they have had provision made for them, have had it made on an entirely non-contributory basis. Again, what are the special reasons why the maintenance of the aged people should be regarded as a special responsibility to be borne by the employers and workpeople in industry? Personally, I regard the proposal to make all old age pensions contributory as being one of the most retrograde proposals in the Bill. After all, when a citizen has given years and years of steady service to the community, it is not a very big thing to ask that, when he reaches the age beyond which he (or she) becomes incapable of being further employed, the State, which has had the advantage of the service of that citizen, shall not withhold from that citizen the opportunity of a system of pensions for which no contribution is called from the potential recipient, because, after all, that is the proposal in the Measure.
If you turn to the Report of the actuary on the financial provisions of this Bill you will find that the contributions payable for entrants at 16 in the year 1926—inclusive of the decennial increases—in addition to providing for the new benefits at the age of 70, will provide for about 20 per cent. of the old age pensions to which they, and in the case of men, their wives and widows, will be entitled. For entrants of 16 in the year 1936, 55 per cent. of the old age pensions will be similarly purchased. For entrants in the year 1946 over 80 per cent. of the old age pensions will be brought on to the contributory basis; while in the case of persons who enter insurance in the year 1956, and afterwards, the whole cost of the old age pensions will be provided by the contribution.
That I regard as one of the most distasteful features of this Bill, and one
of the most retrograde proposals in the Measure. It is, of course, perfectly true that the State has to make a certain contribution. It makes no contribution at all for the first year. After that, I believe, it makes a contribution of about £4,000,000 per year for 10 years and an increasing contribution after that. But that is on account of the people who are now getting on in years. It is perfectly clear, according to the Report of the Actuary, that the consequence of the financial arrangements made and embodied in this Bill completely removes the present non-contributory old age pensions, and makes the whole cost of pensions, not only in the interval from 65 to 70 but after the age of 70, a contribution that will bear upon the two partners in industry, the workpeople and the employers. That cuts dead against the policy that has been already embarked upon, so far as this country is concerned, in regard to old age pensions.
It is, I think, a most niggardly and mean proposal. In using those words I do not for a moment think that I am exaggerating. It is a mean, and it is a niggardly proposal, to take away from the old people of this country the advantage that they have hitherto enjoyed of receiving old age pensions—however inadequate they may be—to take away the advantage of the contributory scheme of pensions which does to some extent recognise that the State owes some recompense to those aged workers who have served their day and generation. Consider now where they are placed by this system of contributory pensions contemplated by the Bill. For the various reasons already stated, I think that the party on this side of the House take a perfectly right and proper stand in tabling this Amendment.
I am not going this afternoon to enter into the question of how the money ought to be provided for a scheme of this kind, but I believe it could be found in directions other than those suggested by the Government. In my opening remarks, I said that I believed that the party on this side of the House felt that the responsibility for these charges ought to be regarded as a social responsibility, a communal responsibility, and not in any sense a sectional responsibility. Looking at the matter from that point
of view and from the point of view of one who regards this obligation as definitely and distinctly a social obligation, it seems to me to follow that the funds out of which this payment ought to be made are those socially created. I am perfectly certain of this, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer who had the will to put forward a non-contributory pensions scheme would not find it at all difficult to discover funds of a socially created character out of which the cost of this scheme could be borne. On this side we shall go to the Division on this Amendment perfectly confident that we are taking the right step in the attitude that we are maintaining here in Committee this afternoon.

Mr. SNELL: I should like to say a word or two congratulatory on something which fell from the lips of the hon. Member for York (Sir J. Marriott). He told us in his speech that the poor were dying with anxiety to play their part in contributing to this scheme. Those words are rare and refreshing, because we have been led to understand that the whole genius of the poor was diverted to avoiding payment at all, and to getting something from the State to which they were not entitled. It is refreshing to know that when it comes to a question of people having to pay they are to be flattered, though it is a question of their getting something to which they are rightly entitled at the hands of the State.
The Amendment is one in the nature of a principle. We have rightly challenged the fundamental position taken up by the Government. In speaking upon this matter the Minister of Health, dealing with the question as to whether it would be financially possible to do without a contributory scheme, used the usual device on these occasions. He quoted the gross figures, which seem to be alarming, without taking into account at all the national saving, calculable and incalculable saving, that would ensue if this scheme were passed. The right hon. Gentleman probably thought that we should not be alert enough to make deduction. The real fact is that if you take from the gross total of these figures that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned the saving that would come to the nation in other ways, the amount he gave would be very seriously reduced. I want
to say that, in fact, the poor do contribute to the funds of the nation in a very real if indirect way. They contribute in character. They contribute by their industry. They contribute in the children that they bring up for the service of the State. They contribute, when the time comes, in the defence of the nation It is really quite ridiculous to assume that nobody contributes service to the nation except he who pays in actual cash. It was further said by the right hon. Gentleman that if you take this money for one thing you cannot have it for another. I should like to say in that regard that the right Bon. Gentleman falls into the old fallacy of the wages fund—that there is a certain amount of money available, and if you take this amount of money for one thing you cannot have it for another. Assuming the first statement of the Minister is correct, the deduction may be allowed, but nothing has been proved more false than the old wages fund theory. There is no fixed amount. There is always an amount which can be expanded to meet national necessities. Other hon. Gentlemen who have spoken have suggested other ways in which it might be expanded.
It was further said by the Minister of Health that, if you do not pay, we shall be compelled to peep and pry into your private affairs. In order to avoid this inquisitorial power, we are expected to submit to paying what should be the natural service of the State on its own account. In conclusion, I only wish to say that the taunt that this was done merely for ejection purposes leaves one cold. Worse things have been used for election purposes. I ask hon. Gentlemen opposite to believe that in bringing this matter before the Committee we are making a leaf contribution to the discussion of this very important matter.

Major HORE-BELISHA: I am afraid that the speech of the Minister of Health has not been fully appreciated! Had it been fully appreciated this Committee would not have been listening now with such restraint to the discussion which is now taking place. The right hon. Gentleman actually made himself responsible for telling us that it is a matter of no importance whether the contributions are 2d., 3d. or 4d., for, in due course, and in the fullness of time, the result of the Government's deliberations
would be made apparent, and we would be told upon some other occasion—and presumably upon some other Bill—what relief the Government proposes to extend to those who contribute to this particular scheme. In my submission this is a matter in which it is of very great importance that industry should know, that the employer and employé should know, exactly what they are becoming liable for by way of contribution under this scheme. We who have to vote one way or another upon this Amendment are entitled to be informed before we do so of the considerations for which we are voting. Are we voting to place a contribution of 4d. upon every man engaged in industry, or are we voting to place a contribution which is of less value and less extent. I submit that it is treating the Committee with scant courtesy to withhold that information which the industrial population of the country are awaiting with the greatest anxiety.
It is from that point of view that I rejoice that this Amendment has been brought forward. I should have thought that the Government, under normal circumstances, would have felt itself that this was a very excellent opportunity to give to the industrial population of this country that information which they are awaiting so anxiously at the present time. After all, this matter whether the contribution is to be 4d. or less is one of very great importance. We are passing through one of the greatest Industrial crises in this country. The Prime Minister yesterday drew a very gloomy picture of the industrial situation. Yet the Minister of Health comes here not prepared to tell the House exactly what the true burden of this scheme is likely to be. He said that it does not matter how much it is to be, that it is really a question of principle that we are arguing at this moment—a principle of contributory versus non-contributory pensions. The right hon. Gentleman says that the principle of contribution is of the highest ethical value, and in that somewhat astounding argument he was supported by the hon. Member for York (Sir J. Marriott), to whom, however, we are indebted for a contribution of very great value to this controversy by the assiduous efforts in research, and in public speech, whereby he has prepared the ground for the Bill.
6.0 P.M.
The British workman has a virtue, it seems, which is not found in his richer brethren. If you offer a British workman a glass of beer for which he has not paid he will refuse it. He will say, "This is an insult, I am a. British workman, and I am not in the habit of drinking beer for which I have not paid." I have never seen that same virtue either exercised by, or expected from, the richer and more fortunate classes of the community—those who have wealth which they receive for nothing. They have not shown a very keen desire to make away with it at the very earliest opportunity; and all that I can say is that, if the British workman is anything like me, the more he gets for nothing the more he will rejoice. Then consider the lofty character of contributory schemes.

Whereupon the GENTLEMAN USHER OF THE BLACK ROD being come with a Message, the Chairman left the Chair.

Mr. SPEAKER resumed the Chair

Orders of the Day — ROYAL ASSENT.

Message to attend the Lords Commissioners.

The House went, and, having returned,

Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to,

1. Finance Act, 1925.
2. Merchant Shipping (Equivalent Provisions) Act, 1925.
3. Performing Animals (Regulation) Act 1925.
4. Agricultural Returns Act, 1925.
5. Valuation (Metropolis) Amendment Act, 1925.
6. China Indemnity (Application) Act, 1925.
7. Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 2) Act, 1925.
8. Kilmarnock Gas and Water Order Confirmation Act, 1925.
9. Provisional Order (Marriages) Confirmation Act, 1925.
10. Bideford Harbour Act, 1925.
11. Kingston-upon-Hull Corporation Act, 1925.
12. Westminster City Council (General Powers) Act, 1925.
13. North Metropolitan Electric Power Supply Act, 1925.
2292
14. Tyne Improvement Act, 1925.
15. Leicester Corporation Act, 1925.
16. Gas Light and Coke Company's Act, 1925.
17. Sheffield Corporation Act, 1925.

Orders of the Day — CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS BILL

Again considered in Committee.

[Captain FITZROY in the Chair.]

Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

Major HORE-BELISHA: I think I was saying that if the British working man was anything like I am, the more he gets for nothing the more he is pleased. The truth of the matter is that the real boons of this world do not come to us who contribute towards those boons, but they are merely a matter of luck, like winning the Calcutta Sweep, or like having an attractive complexion, which is a mere matter of chance, towards the receiving of which we have made no contribution whatever, unless we are in a position to pay for the latest discoveries of science. I am not against the contributory principle, and I was merely saying that if the Minister of Health thought he had done a fine thing by introducing a contributory pensions scheme and trying to justify it on the ground that he was in a high ethical and rarefied atmosphere, he was recommending this Measure to the Committee by entirely false arguments.
The contributory scheme does not differ from the non-contributory in any moral particular; the difference being purely one of practical politics. From that point of view I think that before the discussion on this Amendment is brought to a close we are entitled to hear from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health exactly what it is that industry is going to be asked to do. You cannot legislate piecemeal in this way. You have to survey the whole industrial position and take employers and employed into your confidence if that does not sound too much like a plagiarism from one of the Prime Minister's speeches, and tell them, "Your total contributions under health insurance, unemployment insurance
and this new Bill will be so much. "They do not mind whether a scheme is contributory or non-contributory. The people are ready to have a contributory scheme, provided no additional contributions are exacted from them, and that is a very sound point of view. Of course, the contributions provided for under this Bill show no reduction whatever, and no reduction will be made if we carry this Clause. The reduction, if any, that comes will come from the consideration of another Bill and a book-keeping adjustment of accounts I ask the Committee to trace the history of this Measure and consider how disgracefully it has been treated. The Chancellor of the Exchequer first spoke of this contributory pensions scheme, and when we tried to get some information about it he said, "It is in the hands of the Minister of Health." Eventually we came to the discussion of the Measure itself and we asked, "How much are these contributions coming to when added to the contributions which are already payable?" Then the Minister of Health tells us to ask the Minister of Labour, and he says, "After you have voted for the Bill you will know how much you have voted for." Is there any precedent in British history for that kind of legislative treatment or for that kind of self-sufficiency and meglomania?
The Minister of Health tells us that his colleague the Minister of Labour will give us this information in a few weeks' time, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he introduced the Sugar Taxes did not ask us to vote for them, and inform us afterwards what Sugar Taxes we had imposed. When the Parliamentary Secretary comes to speak, I hope he will take the Committee into his confidence in a manner which appears quite alien to the Minister of Health himself. Of course he is more genial than the Minister—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Nobody can be less genial in this matter than the Minister of Health, because he has not told us anything at all, and therefore I say that the Parliamentary Secretary ought to show his usual geniality and confidence in the people and tell us exactly what we are voting for under this Amendment.
The right hon. Gentleman must realise that this scheme is going to give rise to the very greatest dissatisfaction, and, much as I approve of this proposal, there
are several anomalies in it which must be redressed. It is a fact that the widow of an officer in the Navy can get a pension on terms which the Minister would think degrading, whereas the lower deck ratings have to pay under this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman must consider all these anomalies and the very serious effect they will have upon our very critical industrial position. He must also have regard to the fact that there is not an employer or an employé who is not waiting with the greatest expectancy to hear the right hon. Gentleman's declaration, and it is in that atmosphere that I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will now rise to address us.

Mr. LANSBURY: I want first of all to reply to something which was said by the hon. Member for York (Sir J. Marriott), who joined with the Minister of Health in saying that the people outside were in that frame of mind that they would welcome being obliged to pay this money, and he backed it up by saying that he had travelled up and down the country, and had formed that opinion after coming in contact with the people. I, too, have travelled a good deal, and I have met large masses of people, but I have never met any assembly of workmen who were in favour of a contributory scheme of pensions of this kind. Then the Minister of Health told us exactly the same story as the Chancellor of the Exchequer told us, that we cannot afford to pay for these pensions out of national funds or national taxation. It seems to be forgotten that the money has to be found somewhere, somehow, and one would imagine that the money was coming from a hole in the wall or from the ground somewhere, and that the nation was not going to pay it. But the people are going to pay it, and it will come out of the pockets of those people who can least afford to pay these contributions. The fact of the matter is that in the last resort, whether we have contributory or non-contributory pensions, it is the workers who will pay, and nobody else will pay a farthing of the cost.
The whole question is the incidence of paying. We may get back from the wealthy classes some of the money which in our opinion the wealthy classes ought not to possess at all and we get it back in a better way by taxing them,
and that is why I support the non-contributory principle for this particular Bill, not because I think the workers will not pay because they will pay. That is what makes them treat with contempt the kind of argument we hear about their moral backbone and so on, and getting something for nothing. Moreover, there is not a single social service paid for by the community except that which comes out of the earnings of the workers in one way or another. From what is often said on this question one would imagine that we were living like people were living 100 years ago. There is not a man or woman in this country who does not enjoy thousands of services which are paid for either directly or indirectly by the workers.
It has been said that these pensions will be something which the people themselves have paid for, and they will consequently value them all the more. When hon. Members go careering up and down the country in their motor cars it is true to say that they will not have paid for the whole cost of the construction and the drainage of the roads, and those who -enjoy the lighting of the streets do not pay the whole cost. They only pay the same proportion as their fellow-citizens, some of whom may never see the roads or the streets in the same way that hon. Members see them from a motor car. The idea that this question of direct contribution is some great vital principle that we are trying to impose on society is all nonsense. The whole social services, without which none of us could exist in modern society, are paid for by the whole community, and they are not always paid for by direct contributions in the way in which these weekly levies are proposed to be levied. I do not think that you have any right to levy this contribution without taking into account the fact that you will still leave the worker and the worker's wife and children very largely to the mercy of the Poor Law. All of us agree about that, but there is this further fact that, by making this a contributory scheme in this way—1 know I must not pursue this argument—you will be stabilising the sort of allowance that is now going to be given to the woman through this miserable, meagre pension that is proposed.
The point I want to make, however, is that the relief that will come in regard to expenditure by boards of guardians ought to be taken into account when you are arguing against a non-contributory scheme. Another thing that ought to be considered is that, unless you lower the amount of public assistance—and I know there are many people who want to do that—this scheme ought to reduce very considerably the amount of money that it is necessary to spend on the public health services just now, and the number of women and children who, because of poverty-stricken conditions, have to be partially maintained by the public health authorities. If this scheme were decently administered—I am now speaking of a scheme of pensions for widows and children—if it were administered in a proper manner, you would be preserving the health of the community in such a way that, again, expenditure on public health services would be saved. What I mean is not that the 5s. per child or the 10s. a week for the woman will do it, but that, if you do not interfere with her getting ether assistance from the board of guardians, you will be relieving very considerably the expenditure on public health. That, however, does not affect the principle for which we are arguing just now
A great deal of cant and humbug is talked about the morality of people getting what is described as something for nothing. The extraordinary thing to me is that those people who get most for nothing are the people who are loudest in their condemnation of the poor getting something for nothing. When I am able to live without ever getting something for nothing, then, perhaps, I shall be Pecksniff enough to say nasty things about other poor people who are getting something for nothing, but, while my life is what it is, I am not going to stand in this House and be such an arrant humbug and cad as to denounce the poor for getting something for nothing. In this House, in every Finance Bill, we vote considerable sums of money to people who have never contributed a halfpennyworth of work, directly or indirectly, to entitle them to get what they are paid by us, and I know that men who have served as Lord High Chancellors never pay a halfpenny into any pension fund at
all. I am not going to gibbet them by giving their names, but it has all been printed in Parliamentary records, which can be looked up.
Here is one who served for six years and six months, and drew in salary, not £2 a week, not £4 a week, Mr. Minister of Health—the amount that is considered too much, for a workman to live upon— but this gentleman drew, in six years and six months, £65,000, and he had drawn, up to 1923, £46,000 in pension. You cannot afford to the soldiers of industry, to the women and children of the fallen soldiers in industry, a non contributory pension, but you can let this gentleman have a salary of £65,000 for six years, and then give him, for a short period of about eight and a half years, £46,000. Here is another who served for two years eleven and a half months, during which period he was paid £29,587, and then, for seven years and nine and a half months, he was paid £38,000 in pension—under a non-contributory scheme!

Captain BENN: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to point out, as this is not a party question—there are ex-Lord Chancellors of all parties—that ex-Lord Chancellors serve as Judges day by day.

Mr. LANSBURY: Oh, yes, I know that. I know that they serve as Judges; I have sat and watched them, and I know that their hours are not eight hours a day, that their days are not five days a week, and that their months are not six months in the year. Do not let us have any cant about it. I can give another case. When Mr. Speaker retires from that Chair, he will go to the other place, and, after drawing his salary and emoluments, he, too, will get a non-contributory pension.

Viscountess ASTOR: Has he done no work?

Mr. LANSBURY: He will have no work in the other place. One would imagine that the workers of the country did not work. Where do we get the means to pay Members of Parliament, or to pay anybody in this House? It is only because the workers work and enable us to live. It is in no other way at all, and I am protesting that, if you are going to impose a contributory scheme on the poorest of the poor, you should level it up and put
a contributory scheme on those who draw thousands a year. I want to give two other cases, and I agree with the hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain Benn) that this is not a party question. I am certain that when the late Solicitor-General and the late Attorney-General go up higher, they will rake it in just the same, but that does not make it any more defensible. It would not make it any more defensible if you could prove that I would do it. That is not the point at all. The point of my argument is that I am against this contributory scheme because it is class legislation against the working classes. If you are to have a contributory scheme, it ought to go right through from top to bottom.
Let me take another case, that of a gentleman who served for 18½ months—18½ months and then a pension. He drew £15,392. I may point out that it is not I who call it a pension. The official designation of the income is not payment for services, but "total pension received." This gentleman, according to the official figures, having served for 18½ months in the other place, received £30,353 during six years and three months, up to January, 1923, and he is drawing it still. In present circumstances, and arrangements being as they are, I am not blaming them, but I am blaming the House of Commons, which says that it is right to vote these people that money, and not right to allow the poorest of the poor to have a non-contributory scheme. That is the argument that I am putting forward. I am not at all wanting to say anything against them as individuals, but, if I had the power to vote and determine, I would abolish these pensions right away. There is one other case that I must give. This gentleman served only three years and nine months, and he, too, drew £37,000, and then for a very short time he drew a pension; but the point there is that he had not to live for 65 years in penury and want and then get, as we are going to give the old age pensioner, a miserable 10s. a week, these gentlemen get these enormous pensions.
Then there are other people. If I were lucky enough, which, of course, I could not be, to be an Attorney-General, I might become a Lord High Chancellor, or I might become a Lord of Appeal, or I might become an ordinary judge. There
are gentlemen who are appointed as what are called Lords of Appeal, and who get £6,000 a year for serving as Lords of Appeal. What happens to them when they get too old for that, I really do not know, but I do not ever hear of their going on the dole. I know that all judges are supposed to be very wonderful, very learned, very intellectual men, and probably they are, and probably they are not overpaid. I do not know. I only know that the people who provide them with funds are very grossly underpaid. The point I want to make, however, is that, if you serve as a Lord Chief Justice or as a judge, and you get a salary of £5,000 or £6,000 a year, you then retire, for however short a period you may serve, on £3,500, and there, again, no contribution is paid for those pensions. It cannot be said that Attorneys-General and Solicitors-General do not get well paid when they are in office. I suppose they are about the best paid gentlemen on the Front Bench—they get £30,000 or £35,000 a year, I am told.

Sir HENRY SLESSER: indicated dissent.

Mr. LANSBURY: I can only go by the records, but perhaps they are suffering from hard times. They all look very happy over it. But, according to the returns we have had—and I will try and get a return for the last year or two, to show what it is now—according to the last return I saw, it was somewhere about £30,000; and whenever I go to law—or rather, whenever other people take me to law, because I never go to law myself—I have always found that they have a good minimum wage, which is generally a good maximum, and that nobody can call the profession a cheap one, or say that they are living on the borderline of poverty, and, therefore, cannot afford to put a little bit away for a rainy day. But they are never expected to do that; they are expected to spend, and in their old age, or when they retire, or when their party goes out of office, or when a new Judge is wanted, or when there is some change in their position, we are expected to make provision for them. I think that in their case we have a sound, good argument against making this a contributory scheme.
There is another scandalous state of affairs that I want to call attention to, and I want the Minister of Health to bear this in mind. Not only do the heads of Government Departments get pensions, and generals in the Army get pensions and allowances, but there is another thing to show, as it seems to me, that it is impossible to give the rich too much, and that they are never ashamed of taking a little more. I should like the Noble Lady to remember the words of Lord Balfour, who once said, "Clear your minds of cant." This humbug about the poor who never want to get anything for nothing—

Viscountess ASTOR: May I ask the hon. Member if this is all directed to me individually, because if so, I would like to answer it?

Mr. LANSBURY: I assure the Noble Lady it is a reply to everyone who thinks it applies to him. I am here in this House simply because I know I cannot get any standard of life except at the expense of the workers, and I am going to help them to throw me off their backs, and you off their backs, too. That is what I am here for. There is no cant about me. Anything I get for nothing, exactly the same as anything you get and do not earn, some other person earns for you, and earns it for me, too.

Viscountess ASTOR: Then give it back. Practise what you preach.

Mr. LANSBURY: The Noble Lady is always very touchy when we are dealing with this sort of question. She is like Satan rebuking sin. She is always anxious about someone else's moral welfare. When I see her twittering about from bench to bench, I always feel inclined to say, if she comes near me, "Go and look in the looking glass, and if you see anyone worse than the person you see there—"

Mr. ERSKINE: On a point of Order. I do not want to interrupt an interesting speech, but I wish to ask whether the hon. Member is not rather straying from the actual Amendment.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Captain Fitzroy): I was expecting every moment that the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) would bring this diversion to a close.

Mr. LANSBURY: I will keep my eyes off the Noble Lady. I was pointing out that not only do Governments take good care to pay big pensions to people who never contribute a farthing to them but they also, in every Government Office, from the War Office to the Ministry of Health, employ these gentlemen. Here is a gentleman who is a Director-General of Medical Services. You pay him £1,800 a year, and give a non-contributory pension of £1,525 a year. In another case you pay £1,000 a year, and at the same time a pension of £1,040, non-contributory. Another gentleman you pay £900 and you give him a non-contributory pension of £1,000 a year. Another £800 a year also £1,000 a year pension, and another £890 a year salary and £800 a year pension. Yet we have to listen to-day to homilies about the independence of the worker who never wants to get anything for nothing. Why do you not set him an example of moral rectitude? The real fact of the matter is that there is one sort of standard of morality for the poor, and another for the rich.
There is one other fact which I beg hon. Members on the other side to hear with patience. Here, again, I am not saying a word about the individual. If you have a system with individuals packed into it, you have to take it as it is. I give it because I want to emphasise the fact that there is one standard expected of the poor, and another standard expected of the very rich and well-to-do. If a King dies you pay his widow £70,000 a year—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"] It is sheer, undiluted nonsense to cry "Order!" It is in our records, and every Member of the House has a right to call attention to every item of expenditure. There was a day, not very long ago, when an illustrious relative of the Minister of Health used to take a very strong attitude on this kind of expenditure. I am old enough to have heard some of the palmiest of his speeches in his palmiest of days, and I know perfectly well what I am talking about. If a King dies, his Queen, in this country, gets £70,000 a year. There is no contribution whatever. One of our dukes gets £25,000 a year and the sons of the King get £10,000 and £15,000 a year, and when they get married they get a bit more, every penny of it non-contributory. They may
say what they like about how hard these ladies and gentlemen work, and I am not saying a word about that. They may work very hard indeed, but do you deny that the poor work hard? Do you deny that the miner and the railwayman and those people also work hard? Yet you are saying we cannot afford this non-contributory scheme. There are three princesses at £6,000 a year.
This proposition of a contributory scheme of old age pensions eventually, and of pensions for mothers and widows, is a reactionary, retrograde step, and you are going now to put the burden of maintaining the poor off the shoulders of the ratepayers very largely, and off the shoulders of the rich and lump it fair and square down on the shoulders of the poor. You challenge us very often that the people outside have put you here to do this thing. I know perfectly well that whenever the time comes for whoever sits on those benches in place of you, they will be obliged, by the promises they will have had to make at the General Election, to reverse the whole of this proceeding. This thing cannot stand, because it is as certain as the day that social service, the care of the weak, the care of those who have no one to care for themselves, more and more will be placed on the shoulders of the whole community. The old Poor Law placed it on the parish. Later it placed it on the union. To-day you are getting rid of it, and not taking it on nationally. Even the little bit you took on nationally you are taking off the nation, and putting it back on to the working classes. It is because you are doing that, and because you are the party who mainly support the kind of thing I have read out to you, which none of you enjoyed, that I am very glad to be associated with those who are going into the Lobby against this mean and contemptible scheme of contributory pensions.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): I propose for a few moments to endeavour to answer some of the questions which have been put, and at the same time to appeal to the Committee to come to a decision after a discussion which has been very full and complete. The last question that was put from the Liberal Benches, and especially by the right hon. Gentleman the Member
for Carmarthen (Sir A. Mond), concerned the relief contemplated in connection with the payment of contributions both under the unemployment scheme and under this scheme. It is not relevant to this Amendment, which simply raises the question whether the pensions shall be contributory or not. The question the right hon. Gentleman has put to me, which is a perfectly proper one, and must be answered, will really arise when the Committee come to consider the question of the contributions under the Bill. But I can give this assurance, that to-morrow the terms of the Bill to which we have referred will be in the hands of every Member of the House, and they will then be able to see the exact proposals the Government make. That will be in good and sufficient time before we come to discuss the appropriate part of the Bill, namely, the question of the contributions which have to be paid. I think everyone will agree it would not be proper in the course of this discussion to state the terms.

Sir A. MOND: What reason is there— the Government must know what is in the Bill that is going to be published to-morrow—why we should not have it now? There is nothing improper in the Minister making a statement.

7.0 P.M.

Sir K. WOOD: I think the real answer is, in the first place, that it is irrelevant to the discussion to-day. The question whether the scheme should be contributory or not is not affected by the terms of the contribution. Secondly, I want to refer to certain criticisms which have been passed by hon. Members opposite. They have described the contributory proposals of the Bill as mean, despicable and a crime, and suggestions of that kind. I do not know whether hon. Members opposite have read an article which appeared the other day, which I can only quote from memory at the moment, in an evening newspaper written by the late Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Snowden). He discussed this Bill and ended up with words which impressed themselves upon, my memory to the effect that, notwithstanding the criticisms which he had passed in the course of the article, he had come to the conclusion that, defective as he thought it was, it would undoubtedly
bring relief and much needed relief to thousands of people in this country. I am content to rest upon the words of the late Chancellor of the Exchequer who certainly has been very strangely silent so far as this Debate is concerned, and I am not surprised because I think I can say this to the House, that there has not been a responsible Member of either of the two opposition parties who has got up in the House and said that he would have brought in a non-contributory Measure.

Mr. STEPHEN: The ex-Minister of Health (Mr. Wheatley) said so.

Sir K. WOOD: In fact the leader of the Liberal party expressed himself in favour of the contributory principle, and so did Lord Oxford in a speech in the country some time ago. So far as the responsible leaders of the Labour party are concerned, I have yet failed to bear a single one say that if they were now in the position we are in they would have brought in a non-contributory scheme, because they know perfectly well that the reason why a non-contributory scheme was not brought in by the Labour Chancellor of the Exchequer last year was simply because he had not sufficient money to do it.

Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: Have you plenty of money to do it?

Sir K. WOOD: At no time during the Debate, either on the Second Reading or to-day, has the late Chancellor of the Exchequer come forward, with his full knowledge of the finances of the country, and said he would be prepared to lend his weight and authority to a proposal which the party opposite are now making—that there should be non-contributory Measure. No responsible person in this House who might ultimately have to deal with a Measure of this kind is prepared to come forward at this rime in the state of the finances of the country and say that any other proposal but a contributory Measure is possible. I want Members of this House to know that if this Amendment is carried it means the destruction of this scheme, and, if it means that, I hope hon. Members opposite, who certainly hold views about the popularity of this Measure which I do not share, will understand
that by their votes on this Amendment they are voting against benefit to thousands of people.

Mr. MACLEAN: You know you are talking rot now.

Sir K. WOOD: What has been the experience of my right hon. Friend and myself during the last few weeks? The main complaint—I do not say the only complaint—that we have from sections of the people is not to keep out of this Bill, but to come in I myself have received deputations introduced by hon Gentlemen opposite. What was the first purpose they stated? They complained that they were not permitted to come in. There is not the slightest doubt, as was expressly stated at the last General Election and as I believe every colleague of mine on this side of the House expressed it at that Election, that this party was in favour of the contributory principle. We are in favour of it for two reasons. One is because we believe it is the best thing for the character of the people; and, secondly, whatever our view on that may be, we have to have regard to the finances of the country at the present time.
An hon. Gentleman opposite asked some time ago what the cost of this scheme would be, and he put some questions to my right hon. Friend indicating that he had made no allowances for the savings on war pensions. I want to give just three figures to the House, because I think they should have them before they vote. I find, for instance, comparing the cost of this scheme, with war pensions, and making allowances for decreasing costs, and comparing it with the cost of a non-contributory scheme that the figures are very startling. Take, for instance, 1934–35. There the cost of our scheme, as we are presenting it to-day with the war pensions, is £93,000,000. If you compare that with a non-contributory scheme plus war pensions, the figure rises to £117,000,000. If you take it 10 years later, 1945, you get a figure of £102,000,000 as compared with £134,000,000; and, if you take it still another 10 years, 1955, the cost is £99,000,000 as compared with £138,000,000 with a non-contributory scheme. -Any one would have thought, listening to the speeches heard this afternoon, that the demand on the Government in regard
to the social service of this country was only in connection with widows and orphans. All who have regard to health and housing progress and education progress in this country must bear in mind that further demands will come from that direction. Are we going to spend it ail on pensions? Have we not got to make the necessary provision and take into our calculations other demands which will be made in connection with the services in other aspects of the social programme? Why do hon. Members opposite say the widows' pension scheme shall be non-contributory and a national insurance scheme shall be contributory? The Leader of the Opposition said this about the National Insurance scheme:
I was only the other day concerned in my own constituency to look up an article I wrote 15 years ago on this very subject, in which I discussed the problems of a contributory versus a non-contributory scheme, and I was delighted to find that I was of the same opinion as I am now, that a contributory scheme is the soundest scheme, from the economic point of view, and those of us who are consistent Socialists are bound to support it as opposed to a non-contributory scheme.
That was a statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition when the National Health Insurance scheme was before the House.

Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALD: Will the hon. Gentleman be good enough, as apparently he has a repertoire of quotations, to quote also an article I wrote saying how there was nothing in common between a scheme of real social insurance and a scheme which emphasises individual interests—the division between the two sections?

Sir K. WOOD: I am afraid I have not got that. I will continue the quotation:
I have said I am in favour of the contributory scheme. That means that I am in favour of insurance, for to talk about State insurance without contribution is simply to talk nonsense.
Then the right hon. Gentleman goes on to say:
The very word 'insurance' implies a contribution"—

Mr. MACLEAN: Read the title of the Bill.

Sir K. WOOD: The hon. Gentleman has forgotten that before I read this quotation, I asked if they had distinguished between national insurance and widows'
pensions, and they said they did not distinguish. The right hon. Gentleman concluded his statement by saying:
The very word 'insurance' implies a contribution, not a gift, nor a grant, nor a dole, but a contribution proportionate to the risk which is covered by the insurance.
That really sums up the situation so far as this Bill is concerned. It is a first step towards, as we believe on this side of the House, making a very considerable contribution towards the needs of a very large number of people who have waited too long, and I ask the Committee this afternoon to reject this Amendment and endorse the decision and policy of the Government in bringing forward this Bill.

Mr. MacDONALD: I had no intention whatever of intervening before the Division, as I am perfectly willing to leave our views in the hands of my right hon. Friend, but really when a Gentleman who purports to be an authority on insurance calls this an Insurance Bill, a Bill that has to be considered on the principles of what are called economic insurance, it even surprises me in the case of the hon. Gentleman himself. This Bill is not insurance, because insurance, for one thing, means that your risk is estimated, that its cost is estimated, and that when you have paid in your money if here is any balance over you benefit from the balance.

Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: It is only an endowment policy.

Mr. MacDONALD: An insurance is not a compulsory payment of 4d. or 6d. or 8d. in order to get something, and which, when you have got it, you have got irrespective of your contributions so far as the valuation is concerned. An insurance is a proposition the risk of which is estimated, the value of which is valued upon the basis of contributions. If the contribution is too much and it is a proprietary company, the proprietors benefit and pocket the difference. If it is a mutual company the shareholders, the contributors, benefit and pocket the difference. Those of us who are in mutual insurance societies know perfectly well that that is the basis. There is nothing in common with that feature of an economic problem and this Bill.
This Bill is an attempt on the part of the Government to shirk its own social responsibilities. It has come to the con-
clusion that, owing to the state of the public mind, the demands of public morality and of public conscience, widows and orphans and old people should receive pensions which they do not now receive. Instead of regarding that social service as you regard, say, the social service of the protection of national health, as a public charge, they say that the people who are ultimately going to benefit because their needs have aroused the social conscience, shall pay for it; that they shall pay their fourpences and that they will then get a certain scale of benefit. But when they have that scale, there will be no fund, no balance for the distribution of benefits to which they have a legal title. There is no legal title in this Bill. It is a deposit, a payment made into a fund. If the fund prove to be adequate, well and good; if it prove to be inadequate, the State makes certain provision. It may be a good scheme or it may be a bad scheme, but for the hon. Member to quote what was an economic argument about insurance, and to imagine that because I hold those views, as I do, in regard to an insurance scheme, he can, therefore, apply that argument to this Bill, is sheer nonsense.
I shall vote for the Amendment because I do not believe this is an insurance scheme. I do not believe that these pensions ought to be subject to an insurance scheme. You can insure against risks in industry and you can insure against the risks of widowhood. This is a Bill the burden of which ought to be taken upon the shoulders of the Government, because this is a Bill to deal with a social service which is precisely of the same character as a public road, as public education, as the Army and Navy, and all those services that are ho longer paid for by the user as such, but paid for by the community by means of a scientifically imposed system of taxation.

Mr. RUNCIMAN: The right hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. MacDonald) has drawn a distinction between the proposals of this Bill and the principles of National Health Insurance. Whether that be a way of supporting this Amendment or not, I am not prepared to say. I desire to put before the Committee another point of view, which has been emphasised again and again by my right hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Sir A. Mond) and the right hon. Member for Hillhead
(Sir R. Horne). The point that we reiterate and must go on repeating and emphasising is that the present time is certainly not the time when industry, which is already over-weighted, can bear further burdens.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health complained that if this became a non-contributory scheme it would place a heavy burden on the Exchequer. Surely, the hon. Gentleman is not going to say that the burden disappears if you make it a contributory scheme. The whole point of difference between a contributory and a non-contributory scheme is that the whole scheme has to be supported either by the taxpayer or the prospective beneficiary. It is a tax, however you raise it. Under the Government's scheme the tax is raised from the prospective beneficiaries. It is raised from those who are employed in industry, and otherwise. It is raised also from those who organise, manage or own industry, or who are employers in any respect whatever. If it were a non-contributory scheme it would be raised from the taxpayers as a whole, and I must say that, looking at it purely from the point of view of finance, it seems to me a much fairer scheme to raise what is necessary for the pensions of widows and orphans and old age pensions from the taxpayers as a whole rather than from a selected body of citizens.
May I press my point by an illustration of the kind of thing that was discussed yesterday? The Prime Minister, in a comprehensive speech, laid great stress upon the conditions of certain black spots. Where are those black spots to be found? In the coal trade, the iron and steel trade, shipbuilding and engineering. Under this scheme, each of these depressed industries will have to bear a burden which in some districts will wipe out the entire profit that they are now making. We know that to be the case in the coal industry. The Minister of Mines has already given figures which show that, in the last half of 1924 and, I believe, we shall see the same thing for the first quarter of 1925, the burden which this scheme will place upon the coalowners, upon the employers in the coal trade, will wipe out the whole of the profit which they made in that period. That is not the end of the story. When you turn to the shipbuilding
industry, exactly the same thing will happen. At the very time when shipbuilders cannot produce vessels cheaply enough to compete in the world's markets, you are, under this scheme, making it more and more impossible for them to get rid of standing charges, which put them out of the markets in competition with the Dutch, and, to some extent, with the Dane. If you turn to engineering, exactly the same result is seen. In fact, upon all these black spots you are going to place a further burden.
The Minister of Health says, "That is all very well, but to-morrow we are going to tell you how we are going to relieve the black spots." Why should he not tell us now? He knows, and the compositors know. Why should not the House of Commons know? Why should we not know whether there is any provision in the proposals that are to be made public to-morrow which will relieve the industries in these black spot districts? Is the coal trade to receive any relief? Is the iron trade to receive any relief? Is the shipbuilding trade to receive any relief? What about those who are employed in those industries? Their wages have been pressed down in some of these trades below the average at which they stood in 1913–14, if you allow for the cost of living. The only thing that has enabled many of the shipbuilding yards and repairing yards to keep going during the last twelve months has been the fact that those who are employed there, taking a reasonable view of the conditions of the trade, were prepared to make great sacrifices in order to reduce the labour charges. At the very time when they are down at that low wage level, the Government under this proposal is going to place a burden of some pence —it may not be much, but it is something—upon these workpeople. If real relief is to be given them to-morrow, let it be made public to-day.
The right hon. Gentleman cannot get out of a discussion of this kind merely by saying that it is striking at the very root of the Bill. I do not believe that that is a fair statement, having regard to the principles on which the Bill has been drawn. This scheme could work perfectly well, even if the Government allowed in the rst few years the whole amount to be provided by the State. If it were provided by the State, it would be worked more economically and more justly than by placing the burden at the
present time upon a specially selected class of taxpayers who, in many of these heavily depressed trades, are less able to bear it than they have ever been at any period during the last 50 years.

Mr. BUCHANAN: The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health says that this scheme is a useful contribution towards social reform. No one can deny that certain people have asked to come under this scheme who formerly were outside it. While that may be the case, the fact that they are asking to come in under the scheme proves that they are anxious to come in because of their extreme need. I would point out that during the War the soldier was not asked to make a contribution in order that he might receive a pension, or that his widow might receive a pension, in the event of his death. I would strengthen this illustration by reference to the coal miner. In the coal mining industry the casualties and the risk of death are as great as any casualties to which the coal miner was liable when he was serving in the Army during the War. To-day the risks of mining casualties are in many cases greater than were the risks run by the miners serving in the Army during the War. We have a position where miners who served in the War actually received better wages if they were married men with their allowances, their food and their clothing, than they are to-day receiving in industry, and the risk of their wife becoming a widow was certainly not greater during the War than it is to-day.
Had a proposal been made during the War that a soldier should contribute towards his pension or towards a pension for his wife and children in the event of his death, the whole nation would have been shocked. The argument would have been that the soldier was performing a national work. We maintain that, equally with the soldier in the War, the miner is to-day in getting coal for the community performing a national function. If it be the case that the soldier could not be asked to make a contribution towards his pension or the pension of his widow because he was performing a national duty, we submit that out of the inadequate wages of the miner to-day he ought not to be asked to pay towards a pension.
Take the professional classes in great cities like Glasgow or Liverpool. Take the case of the man who is earning £1,000 a year or more, as compared with the man who is earning £4, £3, or £2 a week. The latter person is asked to pay out of his small wage a contribution towards the pension of his widow and children in the event of his death. The man with £1,000 a year makes no contribution, but if by chance through his business becoming bankrupt or through himself excessively spending his money he is landed without anything, and he dies and leaves a widow, she can go to the parish council or to the board of guardians, and though he has not made a single contribution to this fund his widow can draw from the board of guardians more than the widow of a man who has made contributions to this fund. Take the case of a school teacher, a doctor, or a professional man who through neglect or spending his money in ill ways can ruin his life and can leave his widow on the rates. Though he never contributed, his widow can draw much more than the widow of the workman who has made these contributions. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health says that this is insurance. Under an insurance scheme this money would be paid in addition to what the Poor Law gives, because the man had made a special contribution. An insurance scheme would be the result of the man's savings or special contributions being repaid to him.
I have a brother, a doctor, and one an engineer. The engineer earns £3 a week, and he keeps my mother, who is a widow, but out of this £3 a week my brother is to be asked to pay 1s. 3d. all the year for unemployment and the widow. My young brother, who earns considerably more as a doctor, is not to pay a penny, although his ability to pay is three times greater than that of the poor engineer. There is no equity in that. Every day we read of school teachers coming to this House. They are extremely well paid compared with the rest of the community. They draw every penny of their wages from the community. The money is placed in a common fund, and those men and women, though they draw wages from the common fund of the country, are not to contribute for the common social service of keeping the widows.
The case of industry was referred to by the last speaker. I read the speech of the Prime Minister yesterday, in which he stated that the Government are considering the question of granting subsidies to certain industries that are depressed. The argument is that those industries need it to employ more men, yet the same Government are proceeding to-day to take money from those industries. They differentiate between the workman and the commercial traveller, the engineer and the doctor, those who need help most and those who need help least. It may be argued that this scheme is semi-popular. That may be so, but a scheme may be popular at this stage, before it gets to work, and he unpopular when contributions have to be paid, and when widows who think that they are inside the Act find that they are outside the Act. This country to-day is raising for National Debt purposes £350,000,000 a year, which goes mostly to people who render no social service to the community for it. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] It may be that they render other service, but for the £350,000,000 they render no service to the community. They raise, in addition to that, for local loans for authorities all over the country, over £100,000,000 per annum. The nation that can raise that amount can raise what is required for this scheme without asking for contributions from the wages of men who are earning £2 a week.
We are now agitating that the cost of keeping the poor should not fall on the poor area, but upon the nation as a whole, but now you are going to ask the poor industries to keep their own poor instead of placing the burden on national shoulders. That is the meanest form of action, the form of asking the poor people to keep the poor themselves. None of us Members of the House of Commons are going to be asked out of our salaries to make contributions towards keeping widows. Why should I, because I have left my pattern shop and become a Member of Parliament, not have to contribute? Why, because I have altered my job, should the Government alter my responsibilities? My social responsibility is greater to-day because my ability to pay has been increased, and consequently I ought to pay more. Why should my own brother, if he becomes a foreman to-morrow and has his wages increased
and his ability to pay increased, cease to have the burden which was formally placed on him because he was poor?
In my trade, men who are proficient in their work often become servants of an education authority, and give manual instruction. When they do that their wages are increased by about £2 a week. A tradesman earns £2 15s. a week and he gets paid £2 extra, and paid for holidays and sick leave, when he makes this change, and yet when his occupation alters, though his duties to the community increase, he gets off paying a contribution because he is better able to pay it. Could there be a greater contradiction that that even among the working people, the better off they become the less they need pay, and the less they are penalised? The thing is ridiculous. A draftsman in a shipbuilding yard earns a comparatively small wage. If he transfers his services to the Glasgow County Council he gets much better wages and much more constant employment, though he still remains a draftsman. His social obligations are still the same, but because his wages are increased he is exempt from contribution, whereas formerly he was taxed. You tax a man now because he is poor and receives low wages and you exempt him because he becomes well off.
The same principle is applied to the rating of houses. A working man leaves a small house and moves to a larger house to give his1 family the benefit of sunshine and fresh air. The moment he endeavours to give his family this better chance, you increase his rates. You now extend this principal to wages. The better off the man becomes the more he is placed in a privileged position. We now hear of proposals that may have some effect in relieving the burden on parish councils, but we all know that the contribution is not to be taken from the employer, because the reduction is to take place at the cost of the unemployment fund. It is not even the employers who will pay, but it is the poor people who will suffer. You might to-morrow engage in a war about China, either for or against Japan. If we were to start a war then, as was the case in the last war, our side would be always right, but if this Government or any other Government declares war you will find 10 times the cost of this scheme in less than six months for destroying life, for build-
ing naval bases at Singapore, for increasing the Army and the Navy. If we were in danger from Germany, Japan or America, this nation could find 10 times the sum which is needed to provide social pensions for our widows. We are faced to-day with even greater danger, the danger of poverty among our people, and you are not giving them any decent chance by this method. It is not a correct method.
It may be said by Members opposite that our Government would have done the same. When we were a Government we at least could do what the other side never have done so far, and do not seem likely to do. When we thought our Government wrong we usually told them so. If our Government had brought in this scheme, the Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury), myself and others would have criticised our Government equally as much as we criticise yours. We would never have tolerated it. I would never myself, and some of my colleagues would never, have stood for five minutes a shabby thing like that, which is contemptible from the Tories, and which would be equally so from any other kind of Government. My view is that our party never would have introduced it because the party would never have agreed to it. Our view is that there is too much talk about poverty. Where is the poverty? Ascot does not prove poverty, your dresses do not prove poverty. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Do not sneer at this. If sneering comes we can sneer as well as everyone else. We do not hear so much about sob-stuff now since the Prime Minister has gone in for it. One does not see poverty apart from the poor people. Our Income Tax and Super-tax returns prove every year that a small section of the community is becoming richer and richer each year, while the large masses are becoming poorer and poorer.
In my belief this Bill is introduced because the Government think that the coming of a Labour Government is inevitable in the future, and that by passing this Measure they will be passing legislation that will be typical and a basis for any other Government of the future. All I can say with regard to that is, that this contributory scheme will not last one day longer than the new Government, if it be Labour, can afford to give to get
it scrapped. I hope that members of our party will fight the Bill not only here but in the country. I am not afraid of the result. I would go back to my own constituency and fight on this issue and accept the verdict of the people. Imagine the injustice of asking a miner, with greater danger to his life daily than he had when he was in the Army, to pay contributions out of 30s. a week. The miner to-day is less able to pay for a pension for his widow than he was when he served in the Army. The average wage of the miners in my constituency works out at 34s. 6d. a week. The Government would have rebelled against a soldier contributing. We rebel against the miner contributing. The rich can afford to pay. The Noble Lady the Member for Sutton (Viscountess Astor) can afford to pay; by means of Super-tax she could contribute more than she is doing. Talk about philanthropy and charity! If we started to keep the poor under a proper national scheme, we would need none of your charity. I am tired of charity, tired of the handing out of a few shillings to the poor. It is the nation's duty to keep the widow. If the nation can keep the widow of the late King it can keep the widow of a miner, and see that she is secure against privations and poverty, and that her children are given the chance of a decent life, even as is done in the case of a Royal prince or duke.

Mr. J. HUDSON: The performance that we had a little while ago from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health was undoubtedly brought about by the fact that, although he had been appealed to several times during the Debate to provide information upon which the value of the Debate must ultimately depend, throughout he failed to give that information, and, indeed, proved in his speech that the only argument he had was an old, dished-up quotation used, not once only in these Debates, but several times— a quotation which was ultimately shown to have no relationship whatever to the question under discussion. Unfortunately, the Minister of Health was in no better situation. Apparently, the only argument that he had to advance against the Amendment was that we had introduced it for electoral purposes. At any rate he should be a good judge upon that matter, or the party that he represents should be.
I observed only last week-end, on the walls of a Conservative club in the West Dorsetshire division, a beautifully coloured poster, appropriately blue, promising the worker many things, with the aid of graphic representations and nicely drawn rectangles, each covered with 10s.—10s. for the widow and 10s. for the worker, if he survives until 60 years of age—and away in the top of the poster, hardly observed until you came to look closely at it, four little circles representing the four little pennies that each week you are going to extract from him. At the bottom of this carefully prepared poster was the statement that any who desired further information about the magnificent benefits they were receiving from the present Government, would gladly be provided with it by the Conservative agent. Apparently it was not necessary for the Conservative Association which has been responsible for the printing of these posters, to wait for this Debate or for the Minister's speech. These do not count at all.
I submit that the Minister of Health knew perfectly well, when he made the statement to-night, that this Amendment had been brought forward for electoral purposes, that it is exactly for such purposes that this Bill has been drafted and that the poster I have mentioned has been circulated. Let us leave that point, which apparently was the main point that the Minister had to bring forward. Let us discuss again what we consider to be the very serious backward step that has been made in connection with this proposal. As one of my hon. Friends has shown, even such advantages as we gained many years past as a result of the old age pensions legislation, when the workers were kept free from contributions, are ultimately to be taken entirely away from the workers, for the proposal that we are now discussing is one that must ultimately mean that both for widows and for old age pensions the contributory principle shall be the sole principle. It is very important to consider what would have happened had this legislation not been introduced. What would have been the position of the workers in the West Dorsetshire Division? They would have had from their boards of guardians support more generous than the support which is contemplated in this Bill. In many of the Yorkshire areas,
boards of guardians grant to a widow with three children a. subvention in excess of 30s. a week. In some cases it is as much as 35s. or 36s. a week, when you take into account the allowances for rent, coal and so on. What is the proposal of the Bill? It is 10s. for the widow, 5s. for the first child, and 3s. for each subsequent child. That is to say, you propose to give 21s. to a widow with three children. There is not very much benefit to be obtained by that, when you consider that at the present time the benefits that would be received by working people who might be compelled to go to boards of guardians are greater.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think the arguments now used by the hon. Member would be more appropriate on a subsequent Amendment. On this Amendment he must confine himself to the question whether this should be a contributory or a non-contributory scheme.

Mr. HUDSON: I am trying to show that the contributions which would be forthcoming, had this scheme not gone through, would have been contributions provided through the ordinary process of payment of taxes and rates, contributions that would have been drawn, not from the workers alone or from the employers, but would have been drawn generally from the community. I want to ask the Minister, what ground is there for letting off the landlords in connection with this matter? Why should they not be contributing to a scheme for widows' pensions? What ground is there for letting off large numbers of other persons who at present are compelled to contribute to widows and the children of widows by such arrangements as we now make? I make the suggestion to the Minister that this is a deliberate plan by which he is shifting the burden from the shoulders of all to the shoulders of a limited number. The worst part of this proposition is that it is brought in at a time following constant reductions in wages. The working classes have lost in one year alone £500,000,000 in wages. It is following that experience that the Government come forward with a proposal that a further contribution of 4d. per week should be taken from the workers.
8.0 P.M.
Those who followed carefully the speech of the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer will remember that he stated that the reason why the State had to come in at all, with regard to pensions for widows, was that large masses of the people had been entirely unable to provide for the dreadful consequences of death, if death ever assailed the breadwinner in the family. If they could not provide for these dreadful consequences, why does the Government come in with this proposal of a further additional burden for the worker? It is entirely unjust. It is particularly unjust when one remembers that we have frequently reminded the Government how easy it would have been to have collected this money in the form of Super-tax and Income Tax. It is a piece of class legislation, particularly when you consider it from the point of view of the contributions, and it is for that reason, more than any other, that we shall offer our opposition to the Bill, and we bring this Amendment forward.

Captain BENN: I would like to reinforce what has been said. I am going to vote for this Amendment. I do not see how a Member of a party which brought in a plan of non-contributory pensions can vote for a plan which is going to put even the existing system on a contributory basis. We know that this is a 'heavy burden on industry. We know there is a plan promised by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget speech. We know that it is formulated, that it has been approved by the Cabinet, that it is in print and has been presented, and in a few hours will be circulated to us by the Vote Office. It has a most material bearing upon this Amendment. It is obvious we cannot decide on the question before us without knowing what the Government are going to do to assist industry. What possible reason can the right hon. Gentleman, who is geniality, candour and information itself in this House, have for not telling us? Will not the Minister of Labour allow him? We are going to know in a few hours. It has a most direct bearing upon the issue, and, therefore, it seems to me, the most proper thing for us to do would be to postpone the discussion on this Clause. It may be that when the proposals of the Government are explained, everyone will abandon the Amendment, or, it may be, when they
are explained, everyone will vote for the Amendment. But we cannot make up our minds about the Amendment until we know the facts, which are not secret, but merely have not reached us in time. Therefore, I ask you, Sir, whether we should be in order in moving, not that the Debate be adjourned, because I have no desire to delay the general progress of the Bill, but that the further consideration of Clause I should be adjourned, in order that we may have his information before us before we come to a decision. I, therefore, beg to move, "That the Clause be postponed."

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I cannot accept that Motion.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: May I put it that this is very germane to the discussion upon which we are now embarked? We are really arguing without all the facts before us. One of the main arguments being used now is that of the burden on industry, and, unless we know the true position of industry, we are at a serious disadvantage, and it is not quite fair to the Committee to be left in this position. I think we should have some information from the Government.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I will accept the hon. and gallant Gentleman's Motion if it be put in the form of reporting Progress, but not to postpone the Clause in the middle of the discussion.

Captain BENN: I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
I did not move to report Progress before, for the reason I gave.

Question put, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."

The Committee proceeded to a Division.

Sir A. MOND: On a point of Order. Surely we are entitled to make a statement?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Several Members, including myself, rose. I was going to suggest that there should be some sort of reply from the Government.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. and gallant Member is not in Order. Clear the Lobby.

Mr. MACLEAN: I want to protest against your putting) this Motion— [Interruption.] I am going to protest against your putting this Motion, after having looked at the other side of the House, and refusing to look at this side.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: rose—

Mr. MACLEAN: I am not going to sit down. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order"] I raise a point of Order. [HON. MEMBERS: "Sit down."] I shall not sit down.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Member will sit down, I will deal with his point of Order. When a Division has been called, an hon. Mem-

ber who wishes to raise a point of Order must be seated and covered.

Mr. MACLEAN: I am refusing to accept your ruling after the Division has been called. You have only looked at the Government side, and declined to look at this side.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: (seated and covered): The right hon. Member for Carmarthen (Sir A. Mond) and other Members wished to discuss the Question of reporting Progress, and I put it to you that a Division should not have been called. I very respectfully submit to you that the Division is not in order.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I have exercised that discretion which is given to me.

The Committee divided: Ayes, 148; Noes, 266.

Division No. 220]
AYES.
[8.8 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark, N.)
Saklatvala, Shapurji


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Scrymgeour, E.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Scurr, John


Ammon, Charles George
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Sexton, James


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hardie, George D.
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Harris, Percy A.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Baker, Walter
Hayday, Arthur
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hayes, John Henry
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Barnes, A.
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Sitch, Charles H.


Barr, J
Hirst, G. H.
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Batey, Joseph
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Smillie, Robert


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Jenkins. W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Briant, Frank
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Snell, Harry


Broad, F. A.
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe)


Buchanan, G.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Stamford, T. W.


Charleton, H. C.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Stephen, Campbell


Clowes, S.
Kelly, W. T.
Sutton, J. E.


Cluse, W. S.
Kennedy, T.
Taylor, R. A.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Compton, Joseph
Kirkwood, D.
Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro, W.)


Connolly, M.
Lansbury, George
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Cove, W. G.
Lawson, John James
Thurtle, E.


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Lee, F.
Tinker, John Joseph


Dalton, Hugh
Livingstone, A. M.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lowth, T.
Varley, Frank B.


Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
Lunn, William
Viant, S. P.


Day, Colonel Harry
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon)
Wallhead, Richard C.


Dennison, R.
Mackinder, W.
Warns, G. H.


Duckworth, John
MacLaren, Andrew
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Duncan, C.
March, S.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Dunnico, H.
Maxton, James
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Edwards, John H. (Accrington)
Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred
Welsh, J. C.


Fenby, T. D.
Montague, Frederick
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Forrest, W.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Whiteley, W.


Garro-Jones, Captain G M.
Murnin, H.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Gibbins, Joseph
Naylor, T. E.
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Gillett, George M.
Oliver, George Harold
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Gosling, Harry
Palin, John Henry
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Paling, W.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Greenall, T.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Windsor, Walter


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Potts, John S.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)



Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Riley, Ben
TELLERS FOR THE AYES—


Groves, T.
Ritson, J.
Sir Godfrey Collins and Major Crawfurd.


Grundy, T. W.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O.(W. Bromwich)



Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)



NOES.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Macintyre, I.


Ainsworth, Major Charles
Elliot, Captain Walter E.
McLean, Major A.


Albery, Irving James
Elvedon, Viscount
MacMillan, Captain H.


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
England, Colonel A.
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Malone, Major P. B.


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.
Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
Margesson, Captain D.


Astor, Viscountess
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.


Atholl, Duchess of
Everard, W. Lindsay
Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.


Atkinson, C.
Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Merriman, F. B.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Fielden, E. B.
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Finburgh, S.
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)


Balniel, Lord
Fleming, D. P.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Barclay-Harvey C. M.
Ford, P. J.
Moles, Thomas


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.


Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)
Frece, Sir Walter de
Moreing, Captain A. H.


Bethell, A.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Murchison, C. K.


Betterton, Henry B.
Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Nelson, Sir Frank


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Neville, R. J.


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Ganzoni, Sir John
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Gee, Captain R.
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G.(Ptrsf'ld.)


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Nuttall, Ellis


Blundell, F. N.
Goff, Sir Park
Oakley, T.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Grace, John
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Greene, W. P. Crawford
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh


Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart
Gretton, Colonel John
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Pennefather, Sir John


Brass, Captain W.
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Briggs, J. Harold
Harland, A.
Perring, William George


Briscoe, Richard George
Harney, E. A.
Pielou, D. P.


Brittain, Sir Harry
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Pilcher, G.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Haslam, Henry C.
Preston, William


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Hawke, John Anthony
Price, Major C. W. M.


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Radford, E. A.


Buckingham, Sir H.
Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxf'd, Henley)
Raine, W.


Bullock, Captain M.
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)
Ramsden, E.


Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan
Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.
Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. John Fredk. Peel


Burman, J. B.
Hennessy. Major J. R. G.
Rawson, Alfred Cooper


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Reid Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Herbert, S. (York, N. R. Scar. & Wh'by)
Remer, J. R.


Caine, Gordon Hall
Hilton, Cecil
Remnant, Sir James


Campbell, E. T.
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Rentoul, G. S.


Cassels, J. D.
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Rice, Sir Frederick


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Holt, Capt. H. P.
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Stretford)


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Rye, F. G.


Chapman, Sir S.
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Salmon, Major I.


Christie, J. A.
Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Home, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)
Sandeman, A. Stewart


Clarry, Reginald George
Hume, Sir G. H.
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Clayton, G. C.
Huntingfield, Lord
Savery, S. S.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hurd, Percy A.
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W. R., Sowerby)


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Hurst, Gerald B.
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl.(Renfrew, W.)


Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Hutchison, G. A. Clark (Mldl'n & P'bl's.)
Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.
Shepperson, E. W.


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Jacob, A. E.
Skelton, A. N.


Cooper, A. Duff
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Cope, Major William
Jephcott, A. R.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Couper, J. B.
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Spender Clay, Colonel H.


Crook, C. W.
Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Stanley, Col. Hon. G.F.(Will'sden, E.)


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gamsbre)
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Storry Deans, R.


Cunliffe, Joseph Herbert
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Lamb, J. Q-
Strickland, Sir Gerald


Dalkeith, Earl of
Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Col. George R.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Davidson, J.(Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Tasker, Major R. Inigo


Davies, A. V. (Lancaster, Royton)
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Loder, J. de V.
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Dawson, Sir Philip
Looker, Herbert William
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Lougher, L.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert
Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Waddington, R.


Doyle, Sir N. Grattan
MacAndrew, Charles Glen
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Drewe, C.
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L.(Kingston-on-Hull)


Eden, Captain Anthony
McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.




Warrender, Sir Victor
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)


Water house, Captain Charles
Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.).


Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Wragg, Herbert


Watts, Dr. T.
Wise, Sir Fredric
Young, E. Hilton (Norwich)


Wells, S. R.
Wolmer, Viscount



White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dairymple
Womersley, W. J.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)
Colonel Gibbs and Lord Stanley.


Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)
Wood, Rt. Hon. E. (York, W. R., Ripon)

Mr. MACLEAN: On a point of Order. In giving a ruling to the hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain Benn) you, Sir, said it was at your discretion to continue a Debate on a Motion to report Progress, and you claimed to be within your right as Chairman in declaring a Division at once and refusing to observe hon. Members who rose on this side of the Committee to carry on the discussion on the Motion to report Progress. I wish to draw your attention, Sir, to the terms of the Standing Order under which you gave that ruling, namely, Standing Order No. 23.
If Mr. Speaker, or the Chairman of a Committee of the whole House, shall be of opinion that a Motion for the Adjournment of a debate, or of the House, during any debate, or that the Chairman do report progress, or do leave the Chair, is an abuse of the Rules of the House, he may forthwith put the question thereupon from the Chair, or he may decline to propose the question thereupon to the House.
Now, I understand you, Sir, have given it as a ruling that you can exercise your discretion and I call your attention to the fact that you can exercise your discretion only where you think there has been an abuse of the Rules of the House. I ask whether you consider the Motion to report Progress, made by my hon. and gallant Friend in order to elicit what a number of the Members of this House consider to be very necessary information to enable us to continue the discussion upon this Clause, is an abuse of the Rules of the House?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The Standing Order clearly lays down that I can use my discretion as to whether I accept the Motion or whether I do not, or rather as to whether I put the question forthwith or whether I refuse it altogether. In the case under consideration, I accepted the Motion and put it to a Division without further discussion, as I am clearly entitled to do under the rules.

Mr. MACLEAN: I have read Standing Order 23 under which you claim to have discretionary power. That discretionary
power is limited to cases where the Chairman thinks there has been an abuse of the Rules of the House. You have not given a ruling upon my point as to whether this Motion to report Progress made in order to elicit what a number of Members of the House consider to be necessary information for the Debate on the Bill before the Committee, is an abuse of the Rules of this House. The Minister of Health and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health have admitted that these figures are a necessity and they have stated that for the information of Members they will be laid before the House to-morrow. I ask if a demand for information which is considered necessary on the contributory Clause of this Bill is considered by you, Sir, in your discretion to be an abuse of the rules?

Captain GEE: Is it not the fact that you, Sir, or Mr. Speaker, has a discretionary power, and that no Member of the House has a right to call upon you to explain why you exercise that discretionary power? [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Further to the point of Order—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Let me deal with one point at a time. The hon. and gallant Member for Bosworth (Captain Gee) has asked me whether I have to give my reasons for using my discretion in a certain way. I think in certain circumstances I ought to give my reasons for any ruling. In this particular instance it certainly appeared to me that, after four hours' discussion of the particular Amendment, it was an abuse of the Rules of the House to move to report Progress. Any information which hon. Members sought might have been obtained in the course of four hours' discussion.

Mr. LANSBURY: Are you aware, Sir, that when Mr. Hope was in the Chair this question was raised by at least two hon. Members who took part in the
Debate, and then we vainly tried to get information from the Minister? We had hoped that when the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry spoke he would have given the information. In these circumstances, do you think it quite fair to say that it was an abuse of the Rules to move to report Progress in order to get this information?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: All I can say is that that was the decision to which I came, and I do not see any reason to alter it now.

Mr. MACLEAN: May I point out that we were not discussing during these four hours the points that we sought to elicit by the Motion to report Progress. We were discussing the pros and cons of an Amendment against the contributory principle of the Bill and in response to statements made by the Minister of Health and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health that certain figures which were considered to be necessary information for the purposes of the Debate would be laid before the House to-morrow, the Motion was made to report Progress in order to obtain that information to-night. I am pointing out that the Motion to report Progress sought to elicit information which had not been discussed by the Committee, which had not been before the Committee and which could not have been discussed in the four hours Debate and therefore your point that it was an abuse of the rules to move to report Progress because that Motion was made with the object of discussing something which had already been discussed is, as I think on reflection you will admit—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"]—I think, Sir, on reflection—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"] —I think on reflection—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order! "]—

Sir HENRY CAUTLEY: rose—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member has not said anything disorderly.

Sir H. CAUTLEY: May I ask what is the Question before the House?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is—at some length, I must admit —putting a point of Order.

Mr. MACLEAN: Even though the point of Order is being made at length, I think in the past many things in this House have been carried through to a useful issue by lengthy points of Order. I am asking if, on reflection, when you have seen what I have said recorded in the OFFICIAL REPORT you will not admit that you were a little precipitate in keeping your eyes fixed on the Government side of the Committee— [HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"]

Captain GEE: Withdraw.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not wish to intervene if the hon. Member does not himself get out of Order in putting his point of Order, but I think, at the moment, he is coming rather near to it. I might bring the matter to a close or, at any rate, shorten the discussion on this point of Order, if I say that the hon. Member has been kind enough to give me some time in which to reflect on my decision, but I have not changed my mind.

Mr. MACLEAN: Of course, the longer time that one gets to reflect—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: On the main question of the Amendment before the Committee, might I now ask the Prime Minister if he will be good enough to give us some information as—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I must put some Question before the Committee. If the hon. and gallant Member proposes to continue the discussion on the Amendment, he is entitled to speak, but not on the point of Order.

Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

Mr. MACLEAN: I have not finished with the point of Order.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I wish to address a point to the Prime Minister.

Mr. MACLEAN: May I put this point of Order to you, Captain FitzRoy?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Is the hon Member putting a fresh point of Order?

Mr. MACLEAN: I am. The fresh point of Order I am putting is that when the hon. and gallant Member moved to post-
pone the discussion upon this Clause, you rose and said that, as you could not accept that, you would suggest to him that he should move to report Progress, and upon your own suggestion the hon. and gallant Member moved to report Progress, and when we want to continue the discussion upon that Motion, you rule us out of order and put the Question forthwith. I am asking why that is done by you.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That is exactly the point we decided a moment ago

Mr. MACKINDER: Further to that point of Order. Might I ask you, as Chairman, how you can consider it an abuse of the Rules of this House to discuss a Motion to report Progress, when you yourself suggested to the hon. and gallant Gentleman that he should move to report Progress?

Captain BENN: On that point of Order. Might I point out that I, of course, was solely responsible for moving to report Progress? I would suggest to my hon. Friends that the responsibility should rest with me, and not with the Chair.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: The Prime Minister is now present, and I do not think he has heard the whole of the discussion. Indeed, I do not know that any hon. Member has sat through the Debate for four hours.

HON. MEMBERS: Oh, yes, we have

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I compliment my hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) on his pertinacity, but certainly neither the Prime Minister nor I has sat here the whole time, and as this is a matter that affects the Prime Minister, I will put the point to him. One of the main points we have been discussing is the burden on industry. To-day the House gave a formal First Reading to the amending Bill on unemployment insurance, which, we understand, alters the contributions by workers and employers. I do not think it is asking too much to ask that we should be informed simply as to the terms of that Bill. It is in print now, and it will be issued in the Vote Office to-morrow. It has been read the First time. The information contained in it is very germane to this discussion, and I do not think it is treating the Committee pro-
perly, or, I think I may say, with respect, for the Minister of Health to remain perfectly silent or for him not to send for the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if he can give us this information. I think we are entitled to have this information. The request is not unreasonable, and I must press the Government to give us some information.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I think it is perhaps desirable that I should say another word or two in regard to the question that has been repeated so often, and I would like to express to hon. Members first of all, why I do not think the information for which they are asking is necessary to enable them to make up their minds as to the particular Amendment which is before them, the Amendment as to whether this Bill is to be on a contributory or a non-contributory basis. Secondly, I should like to say a word as to why I have thought it undesirable that I should enter upon a discussion of the details of a Measure which is not yet available in the Vote Office. In the first place, I have to recall that the hon. and gallant Member who moved to report progress just now began his speech by saying he was going to vote for this Amendment anyhow. That was hardly consistent with the argument, which he afterwards propounded, that it was quite necessary to have this information before voting on the Amendment. That may, I think, throw a certain amount of light on the spirit with which this matter is being discussed. But I would reply rather to a speech made by the right hon. Member for West Swansea (Mr. Runciman), who dealt with this matter rather more elaborately than some other Members who have spoken.
He was particularly emphatic about the danger of the burden upon industry imposed by the provisions of this Bill. There were two ways in which you might remove this burden, according to the right hon. Gentleman. One was to make the scheme non-contributory, although I might, in passing, say that it has been frequently argued—and I think it was argued by the right hon. Gentleman himself—that all taxation ultimately comes upon industry, and, therefore, it surely should not make very much difference whether the scheme is contributory or non-contributory. As a matter of fact.
the House has already accepted the contributory principle in regard to the Bill on Second Reading. But there was a second way in which you could deal with the matter, and it was one suggested by the right hon. Gentleman himself. He said you could postpone the operation of the Bill, at any rate, so far as the contributions were concerned. That is a matter which can be discussed perfectly well at a later stage of the Bill, and, therefore, it really is not necessary that we should have before us the exact burden upon industry at this moment in order to decide whether the Bill should have a contributory or a non-contributory basis. Those who are in favour of a contributory system can vote for it now, and afterwards we can quite well discuss what measures may or may not be necessary in order to postpone or diminish the burden upon industry.
It is not that I am anxious to keep information from the Committee which they ought to have or want to have. The information will be in their hands to-morrow, and, therefore, it is only a question of a few hours, but it really does not seem to me to be a proper thing that a Minister should begin to give explanations or information about the details of a Bill which is in the Department of another Minister, which he has not got before him now, and which explanations might very easily lead to misunderstanding and misinformation on the part of hon. Members. I have not the slightest doubt that, if I began now to say exactly what that Bill does, I should have innumerable questions from hon. Members opposite about all sorts of other points, but it is not really right or fair that such a position should be created, and, therefore, in view of what I have said, in view of the fact that it is not necessary to have the information now, and in view of the obvious objections to discussing the text of the other Bill at this stage, I hope the request will not continue to be pressed.

Mr. BECKETT: I am entirely at a loss to understand the rather slipshod method of dealing with public business which the Minister of Health has just recommended to this Committee. We hear ad nauseam in this Chamber long, learned, grave and solemn admonitions from hon. Gentlemen opposite who have come here after long
experience of business methods, and on every small proposition we make, every suggestion even of the smallest addition to national expenditure for the benefit of the people whom we represent, there are never wanting grave and learned business men who rise on the other side of the House and say to us: "Give us the exact figure, put it in front of us, work it out in £ s. d., our hearts beat for the poor just as much as yours, but we must know exactly what it will cost." Then one of their leaders, the Minister of Health, tells this Committee, on one of the most important pieces of legislation of the year, that we can come to a decision as to whether industry can bear this very great burden or not without knowing anything like the precise burden, or any amount of the burden, which industry is going to bear. I must confess that I am very surprised—and disappointed— that it has been possible for me to get an opportunity to address this Committee owing to the lack of the desire of hon. Members on the other side to take part in this Debate. I have read the Press which represents hon. Gentlemen opposite and all that concerns them so admirably in the country. I have been reading the description of the four black pennies, and the donkey with the four heads, with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health on the top of it, and the remarks about it all. I hope that the hon. Gentleman opposite will not consider this an offensive remark, but I am quoting from his own Press. After all, the knowledge we ask for is frequently claimed by hon. Gentlemen opposite, and I do not think they are denied it. They represent the business experience of this House just the same as many of my colleagues on these benches claim to represent the organised working classes in the country's industry, and I am surprised to find that a new piece of legislation, which imposes the very gravest burden both on the large employers and on the workmen, is allowed to pass without any of that able and skilled criticism which, according to the papers of hon. Gentlemen opposite, the hon. Member for Ilford (Sir F. Wise) can deliver so admirably when he chooses to do so. I should like, if I may, to point out the attitude of hon. Gentlemen opposite on this Bill and the attitude of a certain section of hon. Members on my
left, of the Liberal party, whom we may call the Sons of Mary. There are two kinds of industry and there are two kinds of capitalists. There is the kind of capitalist and the kind of industry about which this side of the House may disagree fundamentally, but which we realise, under the present system of society, consists of men who are actively—

The CHAIRMAN: The present system of society seems a little wide when it is a question of the contributions under this Bill.

Mr. BECKETT: I am very sorry, but I want to point out the heavy burdens which the four black pennies are going to place on a certain branch of industry, that branch of industry being the more valuable of the two kinds of industry that we have in this country. The industry that will not be affected, and will have no responsibility for the old people, the widows, and the orphans under this Bill, are the bucket-shop keepers, the cosmopolitan financiers, and the manœu-verers of the papers. They contribute not one useful action in the whole of their lives for the benefit of the people of the world, but they extract toll from all the people. I refer to the people who make money either from the workmen or from a big industry. Those people bear no responsibility for looking after the widows and the orphans. These people will not bear these burdens. These people if anything in this world even in these difficult times can be described as getting money easily and cheaply, get it, and they bear no part or share of the national burden. The whole weight of the burdens are placed, one part upon the unfortunate working people who are earning a very low wage. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) said, they have very little, and if they get a little more salary the Minister of Health recognises them as coming nearer to his own class and lets them off any share of the burdens which they otherwise would have to bear. The other sections attacked are the sections whom hon. Members opposite, on more favoured occasions, claim to represent. The final blow to any belief I had in the legitimate sympathy with the unemployed of what is known as the business group in this House was when I listened to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carmarthen (Sir A. Mond).
Yesterday, in this House, he was telling us that if we are to get men employed we must pay the employers to employ them—"If you will pay wages, I and my friends will have as many labourers as you like." To-day he comes to us and says he is going to vote in favour of making an employer pay 4d. extra for every unemployed man whom he absorbs. That seems to be very peculiar finance, and to be entirely contradictory. A much more serious aspect of the Debate has been the thoroughly irritating way in which thoroughly comfortable Members have risen in their places one after the other to tell us how good it is for working people to save. What character it gives them when they pay for everything they get! Only a few days ago I read in the Press of an hon. Member on the Government Front Bench, a popular and a deservedly popular Member of this House, who has just been fortunate enough, and I am sure we all join in congratulating him, to drop into a very, very large sum of money which he has done nothing whatever to earn. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health is going to see that the oral character of his colleague is not impaired.

The CHAIRMAN: I think the question of whether or not pensions are to be contributed to by certain people is what we are discussing.

Mr. BECKETT: But if I may remind you, Sir, because I think you were in the Chair when it happened, the Minister of Health in his opening remarks went out of his way to tell us that his chief object was to safeguard the moral character of the worker, and as he is so anxious to look after the moral character of our friends, perhaps we may also be allowed to express a little anxiety as to the moral character of his.

The CHAIRMAN: I do not think the morality of those who sit on the Government Bench has anything to do with the question of contributions.

Mr. BECKETT: And I do not think that the morality of the workers has anything whatever to do with the question whether they are to be fleeced to pay for these benefits. That has been the subject of the few discourses we have been-privileged to hear from the other side of the House this afternoon.
Then we have had a second plea, look how much it will cost. It is suggested that it is question of a contributory pension or no pension at all, and the Parliamentary Secretary, in his reply, tried that very overworked and unscrupulous electoral trick of telling us that if we press our Amendment we are going to wreck the whole Bill. The majority of this House may do whatever they consider fit, and if the majority of this House decide that the wisdom of the Parliamentary Secretary and his right hon. Friend can be surpassed by the wisdom of the House, that does not say that no legislation for the interest of these people can come from any other two Members except the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health and his right hon. Friend the Minister of Health. If we carry this Amendment, as we should, I think, if quarter-deck discipline were not so strict on the other side, the Bill would not be wrecked, the Bill would merely be revised, perhaps by different Members of this House, and a scheme be evolved by responsible members of the Labour party which would embrace a non-contributory system of pensions. It would not cost any more.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer the other day genially rebuked some of us on this side of the House because, he said, we were preaching class warfare. Many hon. Members opposite tell us continually it would be better if we regarded the nation as one class and not as a set of classes. If that is so, we ought to regard the wealth of the nation as a national asset; the care of the old, the sick and the widows as a national charge; and if we are to drop any fear we may have that Members opposite believe in class warfare they must persuade us they are ready to take their share of the national community burden which every decent civilised Christian of any side of the House should be prepared to accept. I welcome the advance which the Conservative party have made in this regard; but when it comes to the question of finding money there is no such thing as a non-contributory method, it is just a question of where the money comes from. The money has to be got out of the stock of national wealth. We can smile at the national wealth, or weep at it, according to our mood, but the fact remains that there is so much money in the country
and it may be used for one purpose or another. If, as I hope, we are all agreed that the care of the old, of the widows and of the orphans is a charge for which we must all be responsible, then there is no longer any grave fundamental breach on that matter. The breach comes on the question of who is to pay, and here we find the disadvantage of having in power a rich man's Government, elected on the cry "Beware of the Bolshie bogey," dealing with problems of the poor which they do not understand and do not make any serious endeavour to consider. The very wealthy people are to bear no burden; and the Parliamentary Secretary will be glad to take part, because of the tame majority behind him, in what, I have no doubt will be the thoroughly congenial task of running round the country—either he or his deputies—to rob the weekly wages of the poor of 4d. in order that his friends behind him may remain uncomfortably rich.

Mr. W. C. ROBINSON: I desire to express the opinion of the workers on this matter. Yesterday I was at a meeting in Manchester representing more than 500,000 workers in the textile industry and with representatives of the big textile amalgamation, and they unanimously decided against a contributory scheme of pensions. One can understand why those people are against it. I guarantee that 75 per cent. of the workers who are going to have to contribute to their own pensions do not earn a full week's wage every week in the year. Very often they draw not more than half a week's wages, but the contributions for health insurance and for industrial insurance are deducted all the same. It does not matter if they work no more than half a day, they have to pay their contribution. It will be a sad day for any textile representative, either from Lancashire or Yorkshire, who votes for a contributory system to be applied to these people. In the textile industry both the employing class and the operative class are opposed to this charge being placed on industry. It is for the Government to consider the position, and I hope and trust they will consider it. This ought to be a non-contributory scheme. What a scandal it is to think of old people, who have built up this country, being told, "If you are to have old age pensions in the future, you have got to pay for them before you get
them." In the textile industry we are absolutely opposed to a contributory scheme of pensions, and I hope the Government will bear in mind what the feeling of the great textile industry is. Nearly 1,000,000 workers in Lancashire and Yorkshire are affected by the decision that has been taken, and they are unanimous in their decision. Conference after conference has taken that view, and I know exactly the feeling not only of the people who have to work but of those who employ them. They have enough contributions to pay, they have enough taxation to pay, and instead of increasing taxation the Government ought to be considering how they can reduce it, so that industry can revive and the cost of living be made less than it is.

Mr. CADOGAN: Has not this whole matter been before the electorate? [HON. MEMBERS:"NO!"] Yes, it was at the last Election.

Mr. ATTLEE: I want to refer to two or three fallacies which, I think, underlie the arguments of hon. Members on the other side. First of all, we have been told of the wonderful moral effect of having money taken from you in due course of law. It is extraordinarily bracing to the character to have a certain number of pence deducted from your wages every week if you are a working man. How very stimulating the Income Tax collector must be to those who pay Income Tax; and how still more stimulating must be the Super-tax! I am surprised the Chancellor of the Exchequer should have overlooked the chance of applying some of this moral stimulus to those who need it so very much, the millionaires and the multimillionaires. There is nothing bracing to the character in having a certain sum of money deducted from one's wages. That stuff, if I may call it so, is the sort of thing you still find put forward by very aged spinsters who have been engaged in social work for 30 or 40 years, and are still deeply attached to the principles of 1834. I have come across them very frequently. They are dying out now, but the last Election brought them out in great numbers to vote for hon. Gentlemen opposite, and I think their spirit has been incorporated in this Bill.
We have in it also the immortal principle that was handed down to us by the right hon. Gentleman the Member
for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), the great principle, so bitterly opposed by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, which has now become blessed, of putting stamps on a card. I can remember very well when there was severe opposition to the idea of deductions from wages. Then there were individualists in the House beside the hon. Member for Mossley (Mr. A. Hopkinson). There was a great disbelief in taking a person's wages and spending them for him. I still happen to hold that particular objection. I do not think the right way of providing social services is by giving people what amounts to a series of tickets instead of money. That is what it is coming to. Bit by bit we are knocking something off people's wages, and giving them a right, sometimes a very doubtful right, to receive certain illusory benefits. Eventually we shall find that we are getting back to the old truck order of things under which people will receive a certain number of stamps, and this will entitle them to possible benefits at some future date, and I do not believe in its moral, bracing effect. I am opposed to that, and I have watched people in my own district who go about collecting pennies for insurance of various sorts, and I do not think it has a bracing effect. I do not believe that the deprivation of a certain amount of money per week in the case of poor people has a bracing effect. I know men who deprive themselves of sixpences and hand them to a man at the corner of the street every week, and generally lose them, and I know that has not got a bracing effect.
9.0. P.M.
My next point is a fallacy which was developed by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health with all his skill as a debater. He talked very ingeniously about the difference in cost of a scheme of contributory and non-contributory pensions. He was good enough to run through various figures amounting to £140,000, and he tried to show that one scheme was more expensive than the other. But that is an entire fallacy. Whether one scheme is more expensive than another depends to a certain extent on its administration, but more on the amount of the benefits and the way they are drawn. But as regards benefits and the costs of administration, the point is that whether the money is paid out of the Exchequer or on a contri-
butory basis, you have to find a certain sum amounting to £30,000,000 or £40,000,000 a year, and all this has to come out of the wealth created every year in this nation. The suggestion is that if you take it from the worker you are saving something, and if you take it as a State contribution you are spending something, and this seems to me to show an extraordinary inability to understand the ordinary simple economic position. We have to take this Bill as it is, and it is one which provides that certain benefits shall go to certain categories of the population, namely, widows and orphans, and it is thought that a certain amount of claims on the national wealth should go to a particular category of persons. A certain claim has got to be made, and how are you going to meet it? Hon. Members opposite suggest that you must do this by a contributory system, or else it will cost a great deal more. The position we are considering now is merely the channel through which these claims are going to be satisfied. We are going to say who are to be the immediate payers. Under this Measure it is going to be put on the wage earners and the immediate employers. It is said that it does not matter where you put this burden, because it is all the same in the end, but may I point out that an argument like that ignores the very structure of the industry concerned. It is thought that the typical economic unit to-day is still the person who owns his business and pays all the expenses and taxes has the rest to divide as profits. Many of the speeches made by hon. Members opposite seem to be based on the idea that the basis on which a business is organised is that of the coffee shop at the corner of the road. I would like to point out that you have capital invested in such a way that the great part of capital will escape these contributions, and the burden will fall only on that part of capital which is active. I have never understood what is the social theory which suggests that the employer is the right person especially to be singled out to pay for the widow. I could understand if this was being done in the nature of workmen's compensation, it being held that the majority of deaths
were caused by the controllers of industry. In a country where there was no Factory Acts, you might apply such a principle, and it would be correct to say that really the widow's pension should be borne by the people engaged in that particular industry. I would like to ask, however, why is a general provision for widows and orphans to be put on industry? What is the social idea behind it? I could never understand when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) introduced his famous rare and refreshing fruit, how he connected up sickness with the employer, while the landlord whose responsibilities are just as great as the industrial employer, was not called upon to pay anything. I hope we shall get some idea from the Government as to why this burden is being put on the employer. There is this further point to be considered which is that the number of men or women employed in a certain works is not necessarily any criterion of ability to pay. You have plenty of firms making their hundreds of thousands of pounds in the city who have practically no employés at all, whilst you have other firms struggling with a large staff, and they are the people who will have to meet this heavy burden.
It is absolutely unfair to put a burden of this description on the employers, and it is equally unfair on the worker, because his contribution is placed on a flat rate and not on the particular wage which he is receiving. The whole financial basis of this Bill is not based on any principle of taxation, or equity, or social utility, and the one class that escapes right through is the most useless class in the community. This is another instance of what we have seen almost every day during the past few weeks except last Friday, and that is the parasites being looked after by the Government. All the time the interests of the rentier class are being looked after. We, on this side, in the interests of the workers in industry, and in the interests of sound social legislation, are supporting a non-contributory system in order that the burden may be placed on the whole of the nation, and not on a certain section who have been singled out by the Government without rhyme or reason or equity.

Mr. GREENALL: I want to say a few words on this question, especially after
the remarks made by the Parliamentary Secretary as to the cost as between the voluntary scheme and the contributory scheme in connection with these pensions. I understand that he put it at from £93,000,000 to £100,000,000 per annum. The thought occurred to me, where is this coming from? I take it that the hon. Gentleman's figures are correct, and it is a most serious question, especially at the present time, where this £100,000,000 is to come from. That is the question which I think hon. Members, apart from party politics, ought to take into consideration in this Debate. I venture to say that neither the Parliamentary Secretary nor the Prime Minister, nor any Member of the Government, has received one resolution or been told of one decision that has been passed by any employers' organisation or any workmen's organisation in favour of this contributory scheme. Silence gives con sent. It is a fact, and, surely, that ought to have some effect upon the Government in connection with this important question as to where that £100,000,000 is coming from. That money will certainly come, in the end, from the working men and women of Great Britain. It will prove to be one of the biggest taxes upon the workers of this country that has been imposed for some considerable time. We all remember the Prime Minister uttering not very long ago in this House words, as it were, of prayer for peace. In my opinion, this is not the way for the Government to go if they really want peace.
Is it possible that the people in the different industries, when they realise that this additional tax is being placed upon them, are going to rest peaceful and be satisfied? I think it is unreasonable for anyone to expect that that will be the case. They will not be satisfied, and the reason why they will not be satisfied is mainly because, in many cases, they will be thrown out of employment as a result of this tax. Another point is with regard to the method of collecting this money from the workers. I think the last speaker referred to the subject in connection with the truck shop. Some of us on these benches well remember when the House of Commons was compelled to deal with the question of money being taken from the workers' wages in the past. A great amount of indignation was created in the country, and legisla-
tion was passed by the House to prevent money being taken from workmen's wages without their consent after they had earned them. I grant that the principle has been adopted for some time, but we can see that it is increasing, and we are of the opinion that it is the intention of the Government, if they possibly can, to continue to increase it until everything in the nature of taxation will be taken from the workman's wages by this method of forcing him to pay for all that he has in connection with amenities or in any way whatever, whether for widows or orphans or anything else.
That is not all. I think attention ought to be called again to the fact that the working men and women will have to pay this tax no matter how much they work. If they have only a few hours' pay due to them, the money will be taken out of their wages at the week-end. I come across any number of people who are only working a few hours a week, and they talk about the tax which is taken from their wages now, and which amounts to over 2s. a week. Some of them tell me that really the time is coming when, having worked all that they possibly can, they will have to take something from their homes to pay, because they will be in debt owing to the stoppages which have been taken from them. Is that the kind of thing that is going to bring peace in the industries. I think that, if the Committee would really consider this question from that standpoint, we might reasonably expect that this Amendment would be carried, even at the present hour.
Further than that, the different industries of the country, as has been admitted from time to time in speeches on different subjects from the other side, are in such a state to-day that they cannot possibly afford to pay this tax which is going to be imposed upon them. Let me take the case of the mining industry. The mining industry will be taxed to the extent of over £1,000,000 per year under this Bill. Is there anyone in this Committee, who really understands the condition of the mining industry, that will say that that industry can continue under such a burden as that? Hundreds, possibly thousands, of miners will be thrown out of work because, in the smaller collieries, the employers will be unable to pay their share of this tax directly. And what
about the miner? There is not an Eon. or right hon. Gentleman in this House who does not deplore the position in which the miner is as regards the wages he is able to earn to-day. He is to be taxed directly by an additional 4d. per week, even if he only works a day, or two days, or three days a week, and he is also to be taxed indirectly, making 8d. per week out of the miserable earnings that he is receiving at the present time. Again, I ask, is that the way for the Government to proceed if they are really honest in assisting the Prime Minister to bring peace in the industries of this country? No. The Prime Minister may pray for peace, but, if he assists his Government in doing what they are doing now, he is acting entirely in the opposite direction. I think the time has come when the people of Great Britain will realise that actions speak louder than words. Therefore, I believe if the Committee will honestly look at the question from the standpoint of peace in industry, or at least help in industry by some means or other to continue, they would join with Members on this side on the Amendment and defeat the object which, in my opinion, the Government has with regard to this policy of placing the burden upon the working men and women of Great Britain.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: I certainly want to join with my colleagues in the Labour movement regarding this Clause and the unfortunate feature with which we are dealing at present. It was a remarkable situation that was brought about when the principle of old age pensions was recognised by the State, and we had good reason to believe that the various parties in the House had not only arrived at support of that principle but desired to bring it into more effectual fruition in the interests of those longer suffering people. The very fact of the limitations which many of us have sought to get rid of proved that it was the actual poverty of the person that was going to be the outstanding claim on his or her part for obtaining this appreciation by the State. The age was so far advanced that we all know how very disappointing it has been to many people that they should have to reflect on the unlikelihood of participating
in this very small modicum of appreciation from the State. But still, even at that advanced age of 70, how many have felt exceedingly grateful for the boon bestowed upon them? Here this powerful Government, apart from the question of whether they were to move in the direction of the widows and orphans at all, had a splendid opportunity for accentuating that unity of recognition which had been given by the State of giving an advance on the sum. It is some time ago since we had the discussion which indicated agreement on both sides of the House that that advance should be given, however small, a half-crown or five shillings, and we raised a very strong hope among many who were recipients of the old age pension that that would be perhaps the next step to be taken by any numerically strong Government coming into power.
Another point which was thought of was that we should agree upon the reduction of the age to give these folk a chance of coining into this small benefit. The Government have resolutely decided that we are going to dispel the hopes of many of this classification of people from even being able to get the pension because of the very conditions and limitations which have been laid down. These people would have difficulty in making the requisite contribution to obtain eventually the benefit which has hitherto been given as really a graceful act by the State. Upstairs we are dealing with a Teachers' Superannuation Bill. Par more reason can be applied for exacting contributions from people who are well able to give them and are very ready to give them. Then, again, you have the police of the country with very substantial salaries. There, again, they are very ready to make their contributions. You have just passed through the House a Firemen's Pension Bill on similar lines. The hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) made a strong plea on the score of specific cases which he had very carefully selected. On the Second Reading I referred to the Rodney and the Nelson pensions. Those striking cases, to my mind, simply wipe into triviality any points that have been made from the Ministerial Bench to-day about the desirability of safeguarding the characters of these poor people or insisting that they
should pay for anything which the State is going to show of appreciation. You actually go in for commutation of pensions which have been given free and have paid out ten of thousands of pounds to the successors of those who had made contributions to the State by means of the Army or Navy. You stand solidly by that principle of saying to those who have, "We will bestow still more," but to those who have not, "We will exact anything that there might be a chance of taking from them."
To me it is a question far beyond anything in the way of partisanship, and I feel confident that many of those on the other side would respond if it were not for this discipline that comes over the party system and tells a man that, whatever he may have thought of a given deliverance from any speaker, however much his heart might have been touched or his mind influenced, he is met by the Whip who says—[An HON. MEMBER: "It is the same on your side."] I said the party system. In my own particular case I happen to be free of that. I know it has its disadvantages at times, but I think the advantages counterbalance the disadvantages. At any rate I am perfectly satisfied. I am sure of this, and have seen it many times and in speeches not always on our own side of the House, that from those who are just carefully following deliverances and considering matters as nearly as possible without prejudice you can get testimony after testimony about the earnestness and the considerable strength of the argument that has been applied. If things were just a little different in the House there is no saying what some of them might do. I want to put it this way. There ought to be a vote on this side of the House and there ought to be a vote on the other side on this human plea that you are all committed to this: that those who hitherto have received old age pensions could not receive them unless they were abjectly poor. Now you are to attack that point which you have established yourselves. You are deliberately to invade, and you

are to go to the very heart of the old men and women or the typical successors of them and say, "Hitherto we have recognised and laid it down very thoroughly that you have to be mighty poor and mighty old before you get your old age pension." We have actually come as a party or as a Government and we say, "Now we are going to tighten the screw on you."

In the old days there was such a thing as the thumb screw. You are going to put them into this torture if you say to them, "We are not going to give you an advance of pension, we are not going to give you the real benefit that you might have expected and to which your hopes had been lifted, and we are going to say that in future out of your meagre little store you are going to make a substantial contribution to the powerful State." If any danger arises, if a national danger arises, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whoever he might be, would be called upon to make a demand upon every resource that there was in the country—for what? For the defence of the homes of the people. Here you say we are going back on anything we have ever done before and we are going to say that the people, while they are poor are going to be trained in the narrow path of moral character on the principle of saying that you will pay for it, whereas those in high society, as it is termed, are to wallow in affluence, and you are further to accentuate such conditions. No wonder you stir up strife and infuriate large masses of the people into a state in which they are stirred to take action which is anything but constitutional. I admit that this kind of business is irritating, annoying, exhausting and makes ridiculous any deliverance of the Prime Minister when he says:
Give peace in our time, O Lord.

Mr. N. CHAMBERLAIN: rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 261; Noes, 135.

Division No. 221.]
AYES.
[9.32 p.m.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Astor, Viscountess


Ainsworth, Major Charles
Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Atkinson, C.


Albery, Irving James
Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Forrest, W.
Moles, Thomas


Balniel, Lord
Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.


Banks, Reginald Mitchell
Fraser, Captain lan
Moore, Sir Newton J.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Frece, Sir Walter de
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Gadle, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Moreing, Captain A. H.


Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Murchison, C. K.


Bethell, A.
Ganzoni, Sir John
Nall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph


Betterton, Henry B.
Gee, Captain R.
Nelson, Sir Frank


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Neville, R. J.


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Goff, Sir Park
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Grace, John
Nuttall, Ellis


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Oakley, T.


Blundell, F. N.
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (W'th's'w, E)
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Gretton, Colonel John
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh


Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Pennefather, Sir John


Brass, Captain W.
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Hammersley, S. S.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Briggs, J. Harold
Hanbury, C.
Perring, William George


Briscoe, Richard George
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Pielou, D. P.


Brittain, Sir Harry
Harland, A.
Pilcher, G.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Harrison, G. J. C.
Preston, William


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Price, Major C. W. M.


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Haslam, Henry C.
Radford, E. A.


Buckingham, Sir H.
Hawke, John Anthony
Raine, W.


Bullock, Captain M.
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Ramsden, E.


Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. John Fredk. Peel


Burman, J. B.
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)
Rawson, Alfred Cooper


Burton, Colonel H. w.
Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.
Remer, J. R.


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Rentoul, G. S.


Butt, Sir Alfred
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Herbert, S. (York, N. R., Scar. & Wh'by)
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)


Calne, Gordon Hall
Hilton, Cecil
Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)


Campbell, E. T.
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.


Cassels, J. D.
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Rye F. G.


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Salmon, Major I.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Holt, Capt. H. P.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Chapman, Sir S.
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Sandeman, A. Stewart


Christie, J. A.
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Savery, S. S.


Clarry, Reginald George
Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W. R., Sowerby)


Clayton, G. C.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl.(Renfrew, w.)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd. Whiteh'n)
Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Hume, Sir G. H.
Shepperson, E. W.


Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Huntingfield, Lord
Skelton, A. N.


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Hurd, Percy A.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Cooper, A. Duff
Hurst, Gerald B.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Cope, Major William
Hutchison, G. A. Clark (Midl'n & P'bl's)
Spender Clay, Colonel H.


Couper, J. B.
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Crook, C. W.
Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)


Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Jacob, A. E.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
James Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Cunliffe Joseph Herbert
Jephcott, A. R.
Storry Deans, R.


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Stott Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Dalkeith, Earl of
Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Strickland Sir Gerald


Davies A. v. (Lancaster, Royton)
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Davies, A. V. (Lancaster, Royton)
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Templeton W. P.


Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Lamb, J. O.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Dawson Sir Philip
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Tichfield, Major the Marquess of


Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Waddington, R.


Drewe, C.
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Duckworth, John
Looker, Herbert William
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L.(Kingston-on-Hull)


Eden, Captain Anthony
Lougher, L.
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Warrender Sir Victor


Edwards, John H (Accrington)
Lumley, L. R.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Elliot, Captain Walter E.
MacAndrew, Charles Glen
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


England, Colonel A.
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Watts Dr. T.


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus
Wells S. R.


Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Macintyre, I.
White Lieut.-Colonel G. Dairymple


Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
McLean, Major A.
Williams, Com C. (Devon Torquay)


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
MacMillan, Captain H.
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Malone, Major P. B.
Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)


Fielden, E. B.
Merriman, F. B.
Wise, Sir Fredric


Finburgh, S.
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Wolmer, Viscount


Ford, P. J.
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Womersrey, W. J.


Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)




Wood, Rt. Hon. E.(York, W.R., Ripon)
Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)
Wragg, Herbert
Major Sir Henry Barnston and Captain


Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.).
Young, E. Hilton (Norwich)
Margesson.


NOES


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Hardie, George D.
Scrymgeour, E.


Adamson, w. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Harney, E. A.
Scurr, John


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Harris, Percy A.
Sexton, James


Ammon, Charles George
Hayday, Arthur
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hayes, John Henry
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hirst, G. H.
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Barnes, A.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Smillie, Robert


Barr, J.
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Batey, Joseph
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Snell, Harry


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Broad, F. A.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Stamford, T. W.


Buchanan, G.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Stephen, Campbell


Charleton, H. C.
Kelly, W. T.
Button, J. E.


Clowes, S.
Kennedy, T.
Taylor, R. A.


Cluse, W. S.
Lansbury, George
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Lawson, John James
Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro, W.)


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Lee, F.
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Connolly, M.
Livingstone, A. M.
Thurtle, E.


Cove, W. G.
Lowth, T.
Tinker, John Joseph


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Lunn, William
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Crawfurd, H. E.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon)
Varley, Frank B.


Dalton, Hugh
Mackinder, W.
Viant, S. P.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Wallhead, Richard C.


Dennison, R.
March, S.
Warne, G. H.


Duncan, c.
Maxton, James
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Dunnico, H.
Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Fenby, T. D.
Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Montague, Frederick
Welsh, J. C.


Gibbins, Joseph
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Gillett, George M.
Murnin, H.
Whiteley, W.


Gosling, Harry
Naylor, T. E.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Oliver, George Harold
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Greenall, T.
Palin, John Henry
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Paling, W.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Potts, John S.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Groves, T.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Windsor, Walter


Grundy, T. W.
Riley, Ben
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)
Ritson, J.



Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark, N.)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)
Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr.


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr, Tydvil)
Rose, Frank H.
Charles Edwards.


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

Question put accordingly, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 266; Noes, 131.

Division No. 222.]
AYES.
[9.41 p.m.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Blundell, F. N.
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward


Ainsworth, Major Charles
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Calne, Gordon Hall


Albery, Irving James
Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart
Campbell, E. T.


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Cassels, J. D.


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.
Brass, Captain W.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)


Astor, Viscountess
Brassey, Sir Leonard
Chapman, Sir S.


Atkinson, C.
Briggs, J. Harold
Charteris, Brigadier-General J.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Briscoe, Richard George
Christie, J. A.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Brittain Sir Harry
Churchman, Sir Arthur C.


Balniel, Lord
Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Clarry, Reginald George


Banks, Reginald Mitchell
Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Clayton, G. C.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Cobb, Sir Cyril


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Buckingham, Sir H.
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Bullock, Captain M.
Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.


Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)
Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan
Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips


Bethell, A.
Burman, J. B.
Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)


Betterton, Henry B.
Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.
Cooper, A. Duff


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Burton, Colonel H. W.
Cope, Major William


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Couper, J. B.


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Butt, Sir Alfred
Crook, C. W.


Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Price, Major C. W. M.


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Radford, E. A.


Cunliffe, Joseph Herbert
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Raine, W.


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Ramsden, E.


Dalkeith, Earl of
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Rawilnson, Rt. Hon. John Fredk. Peel


Davidson, Major-General sir John H.
Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.
Rawson, Alfred Cooper


Davies, A. V. (Lancaster, Royton)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Remer, J. R.


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)
Rentoul, G. S.


Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Hume, Sir G. H.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Huntingfield, Lord
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)


Dawson, Sir Philip
Hurd, Percy A.
Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)


Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Hurst, Gerald B.
Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.


Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert
Hutchison, G. A. Clark (Midl'n & P'bl's)
Rye, F. G.


Drewe, C.
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Salmon, Major I.


Duckworth, John
Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Eden, Captain Anthony
Jacob. A. E.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Edmondson, Major A. J.
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Sandeman, A. Stewart


Elliot, Captain Walter E.
Jephcott, A. R.
Sanderson, Sir Frank


England, Colonel A.
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Savery, S. S.


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W. R., Sowerby)


Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W.)


Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Shepperson, E. W.


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Skelton, A. N.


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Fielden, E. B.
Lamb, J. Q.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Finburgh, S.
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Spender Clay, Colonel H.


Ford, P. J.
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)


Forrest, W.
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Looker, Herbert William
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Fraser, Captain Ian
Lougherr L.
Storry Deans, R.


Frece, Sir Walter de
Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Lumley, L. R.
Strickland, Sir Gerald


Galbraith, J. F. W.
MacAndrew, Charles Glen
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Ganzonl, Sir John
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Gee, Captain R.
McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus
Templeton, W. P.


Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Macintyre, I.
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Goff, Sir Park
McLean, Major A.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Gower, Sir Robert
MacMillan, Captain H.
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Grace, John
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Tichfield, Major the Marquess of


Greene, W. P. Crawford
Malone, Major P. B.
Waddington, R.


Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Sir H.(W'th's'w, E)
Merriman, F. B.
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Gretton, Colonel John
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull)


Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Gunston, Captain D. w.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Warrender, Sir Victor


Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Moles, Thomas
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Hall, Lieut.- Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Moore, Sir Newton J.
Watts, Dr. T.


Hammersley, S. S.
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Wells, S. R.


Hanbury, C.
Moreing, Captain A. H.
White Lieut.-Colonel G. Dairymple


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Murchison, C. K.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Harland, A.
Nail, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Harney, E. A.
Nelson, Sir Frank
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Harrison, G. J. C.
Neville, R. J.
Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)


Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Wise, Sir Fredric


Haslam, Henry C.
Nuttall, Ellis
Wolmer, Viscount


Hawke, John Anthony
Oakley, T.
Womersley, W. J.


Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)


Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh
Wood, Rt. Hon. E. (York, W. R., Ripon)


Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)


Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.
Orsmby-Gore, Hon. William
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.).


Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Pennefather, Sir John
Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)


Herbert, S. (York, N. R., Scar. & Wh'by)
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Wragg, Herbert


Hilton, Cecil
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Young, E. Hilton (Norwich)


Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Perring, William George



Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Pielou, D. P.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Pilcher, G.
Major Hennessy and Captain


Holt, Captain H. P.
Preston, William
Margesson.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Crawfurd, H. E.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Broad, F. A.
Dalton, Hugh


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield. Hillsbro)
Bromfield, William
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)


Ammon, Charles George
Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Dennison, R.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Buchanan, G.
Duncan, C.


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Charleton, H. C.
Dunnico, H.


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Clowes, S.
Edwards, John H. (Accrington)


Barnes, A.
Cluse, W. S.
Fenby, T. D.


Barr, J.
Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Gibbins, Joseph


Batey, Joseph
Connolly, M.
Gillett, George M.


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Cove, W. G.
Gosling, Harry


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Graham, E. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)




Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Stamford, T. W.


Greenall, T.
March, S.
Stephen, Campbell


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Maxton, James
Sutton, J. E.


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)
Taylor, R. A.


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Montague, Frederick
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Groves, T.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro, W.)


Grundy, T. W.
Murnin, H.
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)
Naylor, T. E.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark, N.)
Oliver, George Harold
Thurtle, E.


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton
Palm, John Henry
Tinker, John Joseph


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Paling, W.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Hardie, George D.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Varley, Frank B.


Hayday, Arthur
Potts, John S.
Viant, S. P.


Hayes, John Henry
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Wallhead, Richard C.


Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Riley, Ben
Warne, G. H.


Hirst, G. H.
Ritson, J.
Watson, w. M. (Dunfermline)


Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Rose, Frank H.
Welsh, J. C.


John, William (Rhondda, West)
Scrymgeour, E.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Scurr, John
Whiteley, W.


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Sexton, James
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Kelly, W. T.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Kennedy, T.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Lansbury, George
Slesser, Sir Henry H.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Lawson, John James
Smillie, Robert
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Lee, F.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Windsor, Walter


Livingstone, A. M.
Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Lowth, T.
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)



Lunn, William
Snell, Harry
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr.


Mackinder, W.
Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe)
Charles Edwards.

The CHAIRMAN: The next Amendment, which stands in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carmarthen (Sir A. Mond)—in page 1, line 9, after the word "Parliament," to insert the words
and in respect of insured persons employed in agricultural occupations as defined for the purposes of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1920, without reference to these provisions—
is out of place, because it is a proviso at the end of the Clause.
The next two Amendments in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Shetleston (Mr. Wheatley)—in page 1, line 12, to leave out the first word "the" and to insert instead thereof the word "a," and in page 1, line 12, to leave out the words "of an insured man" and to insert the words "within the meaning of this Act"—are out of Order. There is no corresponding definition on the Paper, and the matter is therefore left in a state of incompleteness.

Mr. WHEATLEY: On a point of Order. May I put it to you that my Amendment is in Order at the present stage, because a manuscript Amendment has been put in. defining what is meant by "within the meaning of the Act." The object of the Amendment is to bring within the Bill widows who would be excluded from its operations if the Measure were to re-
main in its present form. A manuscript Amendment has been put in limiting it to widows whose husbands were in receipt of a certain specified income. I submit that from that point of view these two Amendments are in order, and we should have an opportunity of discussing them.

The CHAIRMAN: It is true that within the last few minutes an Amendment has been handed in, but it has been so drafted that it would literally involve a contradiction, because the definition is
a widow within the meaning of this Act shall be a woman whose husband has an income of not more than £250 a year.
The matter evidently has not been thought out in good time. Even if an Amendment with the word "had" were on the Paper, I really do not think that I could select an Amendment which had been put on the Paper only at the last minute, and which had never been submitted to those in charge of the Bill.

Mr. WHEATLEY: I submit that it would be in order at a later date to put in for your consideration an Amendment. I must confess that I have not had the privilege of reading the Amendment which has been put in. Probably the contradiction which you have detected is due to the careless handwriting of one of my friends. It may be his peculiar way of forming a letter, but I do submit that we can, at any rate at a later stage, put in
a subsequent Amendment, and that we are entitled at this stage to discuss the question of whether the widow of, say, a crofter in Scotland, a hardworking man who would not come within the provisions of this Bill, whose widow was left unprovided for, should not come within the operation of the Bill.

The CHAIRMAN: It has been held before, that where an Amendment has been proposed in such terms as this, that a sum of money should be granted in accordance with the provisions of a schedule, and the schedule is not put down on the Paper, that is out of order. Here, in the case of a supplementary manuscript Amendment handed in in these circumstances, it would not be fair to the Committee and it would not be fair to those in charge of the Bill that they should be asked to debate something that they had not seen. Therefore, apart from the ground of order, I do not feel that I can select this Amendment.

Miss WILKINSON: I beg to move, in page 1, line 12, after the word "man," to insert the words
or the widow of an uninsured man who is herself insured.
This Amendment embodies a very serious principle. If we are to have a contributory scheme, as now seems certain from the last Division, at least I am sure that the Minister of Health will desire that the scheme shall cause as few hardships and contain as few anomalies as possible. Consider the case of the woman who starts paying contributions for insurance at the normal age of 16. She pays, say, for 15 years. She then marries, say, a hawker, a small business man or some other of the various classes that are excluded from the Bill. By that fact, all her contributions are lost. You may have a still harder case, say, in the County of Lancashire or the County of Yorkshire, where it is the normal custom for the married woman to continue in work after marriage. Many of them continue thus in insurable employment the whole of their lives, with necessary intervals when they have children. What is the position 1. If a woman's husband dies and he is not an insured man, although she is an insured person, and although she has
been continually paying her insurance contributions, she is left with the children without a pension. She has then to take part herself as the breadwinner without any of the assistance that is given to other women under the Bill. For instance, there may be a sister of hers who has never paid a penny under the Bill, whose husband may have been insured for a period of two years, and she would draw a pension for life, although she has paid far less in contributions than the woman who is an insured contributor. It is the children and not the widow who are the main consideration. Therefore, the nature of the case should be the test.
10.0 P.M.
Women ought not to lose their rights on marriage. I do not know whether hon. Members realise it, but we are rapidly getting into the habit in this country of penalising a woman on marriage. We already have the municipalities forcing women out of jobs for which they have been trained, and now we are to have the married woman forced out of the pension she has paid for, unless she marries an insured man. I know that the obvious retort is that the woman pays only twopence while the man pays fourpence. You have the anomaly that, while a woman working and paying all her life draws no insurance at all when her husband dies, if he is not an insured contributor, a man who is getting above £250 a year, if his wife remains in an insurable occupation during her married life, at her death can draw an orphan's pension in respect of the children of the insured mother. You penalise a woman there. At the same time you do not give any assistance to the woman. It may be argued that the woman has not paid at the full rate and only the twopence for the orphan's pension. But I submit that the woman who has paid for the 15 years previous to her marriage loses that if she does not remain an insured contributor. Would it not be possible to meet the difficulties in two ways? First of all, at least to give the woman who is insured before marriage her rights to an orphan pension for her children; or, secondly, to allow the married woman to pay at the man's rate. A further alternative is to take a very small consequential alteration later in the Bill and allow the married woman to continue as a voluntary contributor. I see that another hon.
Member has put down an Amendment on that point. If the Minister of Health accepts the principle of this Amendment, these consequential Amendments would be very easy to put in order. If the right hon. Gentleman accepts this Amendment, he will have done somthing right at the beginning to remove one of the glaring anomalies of the Bill.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It is not possible for me to accept this Amendment. The anomalies of which the hon. Member complains are, if anomalies at all, incidental to any insurance scheme. The essence of an insurance scheme is that you insure against risks which may never arise. It is always possible to point out that those in whose case the risk has never arisen do not get any benefit from the contributions paid. But I do not think the hon. Member in this case has sufficiently realised the fact that the contribution of the woman is not a contribution equal to the contribution of the man; it is only half the rate. The hon. Member said so, but she did not seem to draw the necessary inference from that. It is not true that the woman who marries an uninsured man is to be forced out of the pension for which she has paid. If she remains in afterwards, she still is entitled to a pension at 65 instead of 70, and she is also entitled to have—

Mr. MACLEAN: Does she get the widow's pension?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am not talking about widows' pensions but only old age pensions. The widow's pension arises, not out of the woman's contribution but out of the man's contribution, because the man's contribution is double that of the woman's. Let me point out what would be the result if this Amendment were accepted. A woman, who is herself insured but who has married an uninsured man, is to have the pension at his death. Therefore, the woman, who becomes the widow of a man who was uninsured, by entering into an insurance, would thereby secure for herself a widow's pension for the rest of her life. The hon. Member has not appreciated that. Therefore, all that would be necessary for a woman to do, under Section 7 of the National Health Insurance Act, would, be to obtain a few weeks' employment. She could then stamp her own
card until she had the equivalent to 104 weeks' contributions, and that would be sufficient to ensure to her a pension for the rest of her life. That, no doubt, was not intended by the hon. Member, but that is the actual result of the Amendment, and I think she will see now why I cannot accept it.

Mr. HARNEY: I am in sympathy with the Amendment. I agree with the scientific view that has been put by the right hon. Gentleman. It is, of course, true that actuarially this thing has been worked so as only to render certain benefits, the result of certain contributions. It is true that the woman herself only pays half of the man's rate, and, therefore, when she gets her old age pension, she really gets what is the due result of her contributions. I quite agree as to all that, but I submit a broader view ought to be taken. It is quite possible to work this Act as an insurance Act with this view. You say generally, "We collect a certain number of contributions. We propose to give a certain number of benefits. By those contributions, we are willing to insure against certain risks." Having arrived at that, what is the fair thing to do as against those contributions? It is only a matter of re-adjustment. Women contribute 2d or 2½d.; men contribute 4d. The result of these contributions is that we can give certain benefits. Now here is a very glaring and irritating contrast created. The widow of a man, though she has never insured herself, because he was an insurable person, gets a pension for herself and allowances for her children. Then there is the widow who paid her own contributions, but who happened to marry a man who could not be brought into the scheme, because he was either a small shopkeeper or one of the excluded classes. These two women may be living next door to each other, equally poor, the drudgery of life the same to both. The husband of one dies, and she finds she is provided for, though she has paid nothing. The one next door says, "Why, I have been paying all these years, I have my children, I am as destitute as my friend next door, and I do not get a penny."
That is the result, and if it be possible I would press upon the Minister to take a different scientific view of this insur-
ance from what he has taken. He is impregnable in the position he takes up, that if you treat 2d.—the amount a woman pays—as against the benefits that are to be given to a woman, then the woman who pays, but is not married to a man who is insurable, is undoubtedly different. But if he takes the broad view that contributions from men and from women go into one pool for the purpose, so far as actuarially can be done, of giving benefits to that class all round, without varying injustice, then, I think, the case put by the hon. Member is more entitled, if anything, to sympathetic consideration than the other. If you look at Clause 4, you will find this rather significant point. Supposing in the illustration I have given these two women live next door to each other. The one who pays nothing, but is married to a man who has paid, and he dies, she gets her pension and allowance for her children. They both die, and the orphans get the full allowances. Now we come to the one next door who has done all the paying. The breadwinner dies, and she is left derelict. The children get nothing. I know it is scientifically right, but it is a position that is very unfair, and leads to a great sense of grievance, because it is felt that Parliament has done something unjust, and, as the amount involved would be very little, I do make an appeal to the Minister to try, if possible, to extend the Bill in the way the hon. Lady asks. It could be done by a readjustment, and I think it would have a very good effect upon the country, and, at all events, give the notion that there was an honest attempt made, not merely to create an insurance scheme, but to do a real good to the necessitous people of the country.

Mr. LEES-SMITH: The Minister of Health does not seem to me to have met the case made by the Mover of this Amendment. It must surely be clear that here is an evident injustice which is in the very heart of this Bill. Take the case which the Mover of this Amendment has in mind. A woman has been contributing for years. She marries, we will say, a blacksmith, who may be a poor man, but who, because he is not inside a workshop or factory, is not insured. She goes on working and paying contributions for
years, and, taking the period before she was married, and the period during her marriage, such a woman may have paid contributions for 20 years. Then the husband dies, and she finds, in spite of all those contributions, she is left without a penny of pension either for herself or for any of her children. I say if that case cannot be met, it is an injustice that will cause heart-burning and indignation amongst hundreds of thousands of women. I follow the argument that the Minister put, and I am going to make a suggestion to deal with it. I hope when we make suggestions really for the purpose of dealing with some of these very difficult cases, the Minister will give them very careful consideration. I followed the right hon. Gentleman's reasoning. I think it was that the woman, although she has been paying contributions, has only been paying, so to speak, at half the rate of a man, and, therefore, her contributions have been sufficient to insure her for her pension at 65, but not sufficient to insure her for widows' and children's pensions.
If the Minister cannot accept, in its widest sense, the full proposal made by the mover of the Amendment, I ask him to consider the last suggestion which fell from her, namely, that some of these cases might be alleviated—though not completely met—by bringing in the assistance of voluntary insurance. When I first saw this Amendment I naturally thought that a. woman in this position would be able, if she so wished, to provide for herself and her children by means of voluntary insurance, and I think the Minister will agree that we are not necessarily making any financial demand when we ask that such a woman should be permitted to use her accumulated funds to give herself a start in voluntary insurance. But when I come to the Clause dealing with voluntary insurance, I find that if a woman—or a man—wishes to insure for the benefits of this Bill, he or she is compelled also to insure for the benefits under the National Health Insurance scheme. A woman in this position who wished to help herself by her own money, would find that she would have to pay about 1s. 1d. per week. That is to say, in order to obtain the form of insurance which she feels she needs, she is compelled to spend most of her
money and has forced upon her a form of insurance which she does not want. Surely, that is a position which can be dealt with by the Minister. He will find this question coming up again and again. This method, not of overcoming but of alleviating certain difficulties will bring us back again and again to voluntary insurance, and as long as a system is maintained by which the right hon. Gentleman will not permit voluntary insurance for the purposes of this Bill alone, he will find many injustices arising.
I find furthermore in the Clause dealing with voluntary insurance that married women are forbidden to come into the voluntary insurance at all, so that even if a married woman were willing to spend 1s. 1d. per week she—almost alone among all those who come within this Bill—is refused permission to help herself in this way. If this Committee stage is to be more than a mere demonstration on both sides, if it is to be a real Committee stage in which, while not able to alter the foundations of the Bill, we may be able to make a difference to perhaps some hundreds of thousands of people by Amendments and improvements, I submit this is the kind of point to which the Minister should give consideration. The special suggestion I make is that married women should be permitted to come within voluntary insurance and, if they come within voluntary insurance, they should not be compelled to accept insurance for national health purposes as well but should be permitted to insure simply and solely for the purposes of this Bill.

Mr. WHEATLEY: I join in the appeal to the Minister to accept the spirit of this Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman's difficulty is that he cannot see his way to give 4d. for 2d. Evidently we are not to have a repetition of the generosity which existed in days gone by, when we were dealing with questions of insurance. I want to put it to him that, at any rate, he should see that the children's allowances are paid for in a case like this. If the woman died, the children, under Subsection (1, b) of Clause 4, would be entitled to orphans' pensions. The uninsured husband dies, and the insured widow survives. She is left with children who are unprovided for, and she has been paying her insurance. According to the
Minister's calculation, she has not paid the full amount that would entitle her to receive the 10s. for herself and the allowances for the children. But the breadwinner has been taken away, the children are left dependent on her, she has paid contributions, not the full amount, but a sum that will go a long way—I have not the actuarial calculations before me—to provide the allowances for the children, and I am quite sure that, if the Minister desired to meet us to that extent, he could quite easily find words which could be inserted in the Clause now or at a later stage. I appeal to him to make that concession.

Mr. T. THOMSON: I am sure the Committee are indebted to the hon. Lady the Member for East Middlesbrough (Miss Wilkinson) for pointing out a very serious anomaly in the Bill as drawn. We are all very conscious, in the working of the Unemployment Insurance Act and the Health Insurance Act, of anomalies and injustices which have somehow slipped through and missed the vigilance of Parliament. These things we cannot remedy, but here are injustices which we have it in our power to remedy and to prevent, and I hope the Minister will be able to see his way to meet the very real cases of hardship which have been outlined. It does seem to me that the total cost involved could not be large. I noticed that the Minister shook his head when my hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Harney) suggested that the amount involved was not big, but he has not given us any information as to what the sum is, and it would be interesting to the Committee to have that information before coming to a decision. Whether it be large or small, the grievance is a very real one, and I suggest to the Minister that the 2d. which the contributor pays perhaps does more than provide for the old age pension which she will get, and that she is not getting her share of the State contribution as things are, and it only means augmenting the contribution of the State to a small extent to give her this added benefit. I appeal to the Government before we leave this Clause that some concession may be made to remove cases of very real hardship and grievance.

Mr. JOHNSTON: There is, I think, one point that has not yet been made in the
discussion, which, from my point of view, makes the Clause as it stands even worse. The Clause says that to the widow of an insured man a pension shall be paid; but who is an insured man? In Clause 5 we learn that a man who has been unemployed for a considerable time and has been unable to pay more than 26 weeks' contributions in each of three years—

Sir K. WOOD: The hon. Member must read in that connection the provisions of what is called the prolongation Insurance Act. All the benefits of that Act will apply to insured persons under this Act. Therefore, if a man is genuinely unemployed or is ill, that would count as a contribution under this Bill.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Yes, but it is this precious question of what is genuine unemployment which raises an issue which, I am afraid, Mr. Hope, you would not allow to be discussed at the present moment. I am leaving contentious matters aside, leaving the question as to who is an insured man for discussion on a subsequent Clause. I am merely drawing the attention of the Minister of Health to the fact that I am putting forward as the Bill stands a man, say, a shipyard worker, may furnish a case in point. Take an area like, for instance, the Clyde, where a man may have been unemployed for some years. There are shipyard workers there who have been unable to get work, not for three, four, or four and a-half years, but in some cases five years.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman is getting rather wide of the Question. The point he seems to be making will be more appropriate on Clause 2.

Mr. JOHNSTON: May I call your attention to the fact that the Clause we are discussing says that a pension shall be payable to the widow of an insured man. I have submitted that by virtue of this designation of an insured man the widows of whole categories of unemployed men are ruled out.

The CHAIRMAN: That may be so, and I think the point of the hon. Member is a good one, but I think it is one that should come under Clause 2 where we get a definition of who are insured.

Mr. JOHNSTON: I bow, of course, to your ruling, Mr. Hope—

Captain BENN: On a point of Order. The Minister may reply on this Amendment and deal with what he considers to be the definition of an insured man. If we are going to assume that the definition of an insured man may be on a later Amendment, will the Minister of Health be unable to deal with Amendments of this kind?

The CHAIRMAN: The question of the widow of an uninsured man is now before the Committee. The definition of an insured man will come up under Clause 2.

Mr. JOHNSTON: I want it to be made plain whether or not the matter can be raised under any other Clause than the one we are now discussing. I take, for example, the case of a shipyard worker unemployed for, say, three years. He has certainly not got 26 stamps on an average on his card for the last three years, and his wife has been compelled to go out to work. She is an insured person, and he is not. When he dies his widow is further penalised, for under this Bill as it stands, no pension is payable as the man has ceased to be an insured man. Therefore, as I understand it, and—I shall be very glad if the Under-Secretary will reassure me—the widow of the unemployed man in these circumstances does not come within the ambit of this Bill. At present that widow is completely ruled out and in addition she has the further humiliation that she has no pension for her orphan children. I trust the Minister of Health, in the interests of the workers generally, will give consideration to this case.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I venture to think the Minister of Health does not fully realise the very serious character of his opposition to this Amendment, or the large amount of feeling there will be in the country if he persists in resisting the claims of a woman to any benefit except the old age pension as a return for her contribution. Three distinct benefits are conferred by this Bill. First of all, there is the benefit to the widow living with her children; then there is the benefit to the orphans when both their parents are dead; and, finally, there is the benefit to the woman herself on attaining the age of 65 years. The Minister excludes from benefit the first
two classes, in the event of the contributions coming from the widow; it is only the third benefit that he confers upon a woman who has paid all these contributions. The Minister defends that on this ground. He says: "The woman pays only half what the man pays, and she. gets a corresponding benefit." I want to put this serious question to the Minister. Does he seriously maintain that the old age pension benefit is an adequate return for the contributions of the woman and her employer? In other words, is the benefit that she obtains if she lives to the age of 65 the actuarial valuation of the 2½d. that the woman pays and the 2½d. her employer pays? If my information is correct, the benefit which the 'woman attains at 65 could be obtained by a contribution of something like 1d. a week between her and her employer. If I am wrong the Minister will, no doubt, correct me, and give me the accurate figures; but I am quite confident he will not be able to show that the benefit conferred upon the woman at 65 years of age will be worth anything like the 5d. a week contributed by her and her employer. If that be so, and I do not believe the Minister can challenge it, I suggest the woman is not getting an adequate return for her contributions.
The Minister said in the course of his speech, "It is an Insurance Act." I do not want to delay the Committee by pointing out that it is not called an Insurance Act, but let us assume it is an Insurance Act. In an Insurance Act you pay for things according to the risk. You may not get your value back, but you enter upon a fair risk and you get a fair return. If it were true that the woman, in contributing 2½d. a week, with her employer contributing a further 2½d., was paying for a fair risk, there might be something to be said for the Minister's contention; but if, on the contrary, she is paying four or five times more, or, in fact, anything more, than the benefit is worth, then it is not a fair risk. That is the danger of a compulsory insurance scheme. If you have a voluntary insurance scheme only those people will enter who are getting a fair risk, but with a compulsory insurance scheme you are making a great number of people pay a premium for which they do not get anything like an adequate return.
Let me take one particular case that was not mentioned. The hon. Lady who moved this Amendment assumed that the woman who was paying her contributions married a person who, by reason of carrying on some trade, did not come under the compulsory provisions of this Bill. Supposing she marries a cripple. It is quite a common thing for a working woman to marry some disabled person; he may be an ex-serviceman, quite unable to earn any money for himself. This woman is made to pay before she is married; you compel her and her employer to contribute during her married life, and you give her no benefit that is at all adequate for the money she has paid. You give no benefit to her, and she receives no benefit if she becomes a widow. Under Sub-section (b), you do not give anything to the orphan children for the mother's contribution. When the Minister realises the large number of women, particularly in the north of England, who are in employment before they are married and after they are married, from whom under this Bill you propose to take a continuous contribution for all those years, he will see that it will be nothing less than a scandal which will react upon his own head if all these women, after contributing for all these years, do not get a pension on widowhood, and their orphans will not get any benefit after the death of the mother, unless you can show that the woman's contributions are a fair payment for the benefit she may receive.

Mr. BRIANT: This Amendment seems to me to prove what I have already anticipated, namely, that this Bill will create a great sense of injustice. Only those who know intimately the sufferings of the poor people can fully realise how great will be the sense of injustice which you are creating by this Bill. Take the case of two widows who are neighbours. One will receive a pension exactly the same as the one who has to apply to the Poor Law guardians for relief, and I am sure that that will cause a sense of injustice which will be very dangerous indeed. I think the Minister would not find it a pleasant task if he had to explain to the woman who has been paying into insurance for years why she is not receiving the same benefit as her next door neighbour.
Most of us who believe in pensions for widows do so because we want the children
to be carefully looked after and we want to relieve the widow from the necessity of going out to work. That is supposed to be the broad basis of this Bill. We do not want these women to go out to work, but we want them to perform the service of looking after their children. Everybody in this House recognises that it is the duty of a mother to look after her children, and it is not economy or in the interest of the State if she is not enabled by the provisions of this Bill to carry out that duty, and the injustice created will be intense.

Sir K. WOOD: Let me at once say to the Committee that, so far as we are able to consider Amendments put forward in a proper and reasonable spirit, we shall be only too happy to do so. All that we want, in framing this Bill, so long as we keep within its four corners and do not interfere with its financial provisions or matters of that sort, is to take the sense and view of the Committee with a view to modelling and re-modelling the Measure in the best fashion for the people who are insured under it. It is only when we have to come to deal with Amendments such as this, which are very difficult and which affect the finance of the Bill, that we are compelled to resist a suggestion which I think everyone in the Committee would like to see carried out were it possible to do so. Let me, in the first place, in a word or two, dispel, if I can, the suggestion—I do not think there was any definite statement—that the contribution in respect of women is in excess of the benefit which they are likely to receive. I think the hon. Member for West Leicester (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence) threw out some suggestion in that connection. It ought to be known, in order that people may not feel a sense of injustice in this connection, that at all ages over 25 the value of the old age pension at 65 to 70 is more than the equivalent of the 4½d. payable in respect of a woman, the employer paying 2½d. and the employé 2d. At higher ages the value of the pension benefit increases rapidly. At the age of 30 it is worth 5¾d. a week, at 40, 11d. a week, and at 50, 2s. 1d. a week. Apart from these definite benefits, a woman, on reaching the age of 70, secures automatically the old age pension for life, free of all restrictions.

Miss WILKINSON: Does the hon. Gentleman mean that that is for women who have entered into insurance? Obviously, that does not touch the point we are discussing, which is in regard to girls of the age of 16, that is to say, nine years before the lowest age that is specified in this Bill.

Sir K. WOOD: I was pointing out the considerable advantage that will be received. I will deal in a moment with the point that the hon. Member (has specified, but I was endeavouring to dispel the view that may be created that by some means, under the financial arrangements of this Bill, women are being penalised. That is not the case at all, and I was endeavouring to show that very considerable advantages do accrue.

Dr. SALTER: That is because a certain number are taken out. You ought to take the whole.

Sir K. WOOD: As regards women entering into insurance at ages under 25, it is calculated that nearly 80 per cent. of them will marry, and will, normally, secure the benefits of the Bill in view of their husbands' insurance. That is the calculation made by the actuary. What would follow if this Amendment were carried—

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I think we are entitled to ask the hon. Gentleman what is the value of the old age pension for the woman who enters at the age of 16. If she enters at 16, how much is it worth a week?

Sir K. WOOD: I should have to look that up. I inquired just now and I am assured there is no foundation at all for the statement the hon. Member made. What would follow if the Amendment were carried? Obviously there would have to be some further money found, and the hon. Member who spoke a little while ago suggested that I should state what the cost of carrying this Amendment would be. It is most difficult to make a calculation of this kind because the events are not certain under which the benefit will be paid, but some attempt has been made to arrive at a rough idea of the cost and it is reckoned that if 20,000 women every year obtain this benefit it would mean an extra cost of £500,000 to
the finances of the scheme. That is a very serious increase indeed.

Miss WILKINSON: That is if they only pay 2d. a week. Have you made a calculation as to what it would be if they came in and paid their way under the Bill?

Sir K. WOOD: I will deal with that suggestion in a moment. I want to say a word or two about the case of an insured woman who married a man engaged in a shipyard who fell out of employment and was not able to stamp his card with the requisite number of stamps. It was put to the Committee that that was an exceptionally hard case because all the payments made on both sides would be lost and no benefit would be obtained. That is not the case at all. Under the National Health Insurance Act in all such cases that man is automatically kept in insurance.

Mr. LANSBURY: Not under unemployment.

Sir K. WOOD: I am dealing with the National Health Insurance Act. Under that Act a man in the circumstances mentioned automatically continues in insurance so long as he is unemployed.

Mr. SEXTON: If he is genuinely unemployed.

Sir K. WOOD: I am assuming that this is a man who is genuinely unemployed. All these people have the benefit of the Act for the prolongation of insurance. It is not to be mixed up with the unemployment question. That is under a different Act altogether. I have heard of no difficulty or any disputes, so far as national health insurance is concerned, such as has arisen in connection with unemployment insurance. In the case mentioned by the hon. Member the full benefit would be paid.

Mr. LEES-SMITH: Does what the hon. Gentleman says in any way affect Clause 5, which lays it down that for the three years previous to this date the man must have paid 26 contributions per year under the Insurance Act?

Sir K. WOOD: The answer to that is that the weeks of unemployment and sickness are counted as contributions under
that Clause. Therefore, he gets the benefit in that calculation. It is in another part of the Bill, and is provided for by regulations. So far as this Amendment is concerned, I think everyone will agree that, with the beet wish in the world, it is practically impossible for the Government to accept it, having regard to the considerable increase of cost which would be involved. The only other proposal which has been made is that made by the hon. Lady who moved the Amendment. She said: "Why should not those women be allowed to come in as voluntary contributors?" The third point was made that if they were to be allowed to come in as voluntary contributors, I think it was suggested that they should not have to come in as voluntary contributors both to national health insurance and pensions as well. The answer to that is this: That it is part of the principles of this scheme, for good or ill, that it is interlocked with national health insurance. Married women are not allowed to come in as voluntary contributors, for a very good reason. I think anyone who has any connection with the administration of national health insurance will know that the difficulty of administering a scheme for married women in connection with national health insurance would be practically impossible. I do not think there has been a single person in connection with the scheme in trade union societies, friendly societies, or any other societies, who ask that a married woman should be allowed to come in as a voluntary contributor under national health insurance. Therefore the difficulty arises that when you ask for a woman in these circumstances to come in as a. voluntary contributor under the women's pension scheme, you are divorcing that part of the machinery of the Bill from national health insurance.

Miss WILKINSON: Is it not a fact that the married woman is debarred from National Health Insurance because of the possibility of malingering?

Sir K. WOOD: I do not quite follow that. I now come to the second point. Obviously people who would come in as voluntary contributors under such a scheme as this would be those most likely to have benefit. There would be a selection by this means against the
scheme, and the actuaries consider that the risk of such a thing might be so considerable that it would not be advisable to permit that option. The difficulty of extending the principle of voluntary contributors under the scheme is that you are getting all sorts of risks in, and all covering a very wide sphere, that directly you open the door you get people coming in who are likely to take benefits quickly, and the people not likely, and who are better subjects as far as insurance is concerned, stay out. We are afraid that the selection against the scheme would be very great, and would involve a considerable sum as far as the scheme is concerned. Everyone would like to give more benefits, but we are bound, if we can, to keep it on a stable financial position, and very reluctantly and regretfully for those reasons, I am sorry to say we cannot assent to the Amendment suggested.

Mr. J. BAKER: How can the hon. Gentleman make his argument apply to those women who entered at 16 and paid contributions? When he is considering twopences, and the cost of this scheme, will he get an estimate of what will be the cost to the nation of keeping these women and their children as paupers?

Major HORE-BELISHA: The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health has made an interesting and extremely sympathetic speech, but in spite of his oratorical aptitude I should like to protest against the manner in which the Government is treating the Committee throughout these discussions. On the last Amendment and on this Amendment they have refrained from giving us the data on which to arrive at a satisfactory decision. We had no information before us on the last Amendment, and the only relevant questions which have been put to the Government in regard to this Amendment have remained unanswered. The discrimination that is made against this insured woman has not been justified by the Parliamentary Secretary. He has not told us what would be the cost of bringing this unfortunate woman into the scheme. He has not made any calculation as to how many such widows there would be likely to be. His actuarial advisers, who have had such arduous work cast upon them and have acquitted themselves so
well in the publications which have been furnished, could easily have provided the hon. Gentleman with the necessary information in order that he might give it to the Committee.

Sir K. WOOD: I said that if 20,000 of these persons come in, as suggested, the cost would be £500,000.

Major HORE-BELISHA: That is extremely interesting, and I am very much obliged, but the hon. Member says, "if" 20,000 persons come in. We want to have, and I submit in all earnestness we have a right to have, a calculation of some kind. His actuarial advisers are extremely competent persons and have shown their ability to give all possible statistics and figures. This Amendment has been on the Paper for a very considerable period, and it was due to the hon. Member who moved it and to hon. Members who are interested in it to have material supplied upon which they might arrive at a just and satisfactory conclusion.

Sir K. WOOD: Perhaps I did not explain our difficulty. Perhaps the hon. and gallant Member can tell me how many insured women he thinks will marry uninsured men. Obviously, you can only give some sort of a guess.

Major HORE-BELISHA: The whole basis of the Bill must be that certain calculations of an intricate nature have to be made. If not, we are basing the whole of this discussion on conjecture, and we do not know at this moment whether the Bill is sound or unsound. If it be unsound, then by admitting this Amendment it will not do very much damage to the finance of a scheme which is quite hazy and ill-considered. I suggest that the actuaries, who have obtained all the necessary figures as to the insured persons upon which this Bill has been drafted, could easily have given my hon. Friend the necessary facts in connection with this Amendment.
11.0 P.M.
The scheme must stand or fall when you consider it as a whole. There are imperfections in every scheme. Here is an injustice so patent, so glaring that my hon. Friend has not even endeavoured to give an argument in favour of it. All he has said has been: "I quite agree with everything that has been said. Here is a poor, unfortunate woman who is
paying week after week her insurance contributions and is entitled to nothing except an old age pension, whereas her sister next door who pays nothing from the date of her birth to the date of her death is entitled to all sorts of benefit." "I agree," says my hon. Friend, "that that is a great injustice. I shed tears when I think of this poor, unfortunate woman being deprived of benefits which her more forunate sister is to obtain, but we have not catered for her, and our whole scheme would collapse if we were to bring her in." There is an indictment and conviction of the whole Bill. If you cannot justify a thing you have no right to come to this House and reject an Amendment which seeks to put it right. If you can justify it, then let us have the argument by which you do justify it. Here is an inequitable provision at the beginning of this Bill. The Minister of Health tells us that he wants the co-operation of all parties to make it a satisfactory Measure to give benefit on an equal basis to all who deserve it. But when a suggestion is put forward on the first Clause, the Parliamentary Secretary says "Thank you very much for your suggestion. It makes my heart bleed to have it pointed out that these widows who are in a far worse position than the widows who are brought in, should be deprived of all benefit, it makes the Government cry. We realise the force of your argument, but we can do nothing because we have made no calculation, and if we did make calculations, we feel that the scheme might be destroyed." I ask the courteous and efficient Parliamentary Secretary, before we divide on this question to state two plain facts. The first is, what will this cost? The second is the significant question of the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith), what is the cash value of the contributions made by the insured woman from 16 to 65 years of age? If it should transpire that it is worth more than 10s. a week then there would be no grounds for resisting this very cogent and useful Amendment.

Mr. ROSSLYN MITCHELL: The test of a scheme of this nature is whether it fulfils the purposes for which it was introduced. In the Budget speech it was stated that this Bill would be for two definite objects. One was that no
widow should have to enter into and compete in the labour market. The other was that she should not have to be dependent upon parish relief for the maintenance of herself and her children. The Minister of Health said that the secret of insurance is the provision against contingencies that may never happen. I demur entirely in that definition of insurance. By far the greater amount of insurance that is taken out in every country in the world is insurance against a contingency which is bound to happen. Life insurance is far and away the largest form of insurance. Life insurance is by way of provision for a contingency which is certain to happen. It does not matter from the public point of view what may be the actuariall opinion upon this scheme. What is vastly important to the public is that they should not be misled intentionally or unintentionally, and should know precisely what they are insuring against. For the hon. Gentleman opposite to say that young girls of 16 are to begin to pay premiums for insurance against old age from 65 to 70 years is, I think, trifling with the Committee. The girl's 2d. is taken from her wages as her premium for this insurance. She is bound to pay that. She is paying that 2d. against the risk of widowhood and against the risk of having fatherless children.
This is called a widows' and orphans' pension scheme. How are we to deal with these girls? The one girl pays. She marries an uninsured man and continues to pay. The uninsured man dies, and she still continues to pay to the scheme, she and her employer 4½d. a week, to meet this remote contingency of an old age pension between 65 and 70; whereas the other girl, who starts beside her in the same work, or the girl who does not work at all and who pays nothing herself, marries a man who is insured, pays nothing while she is married, is left a widow and pays nothing again, and she is enabled to get a pension for herself and for her children. And the difference between those two, including the old age pension, is a difference between 9d. a week and 4½d. a week. I think the Minister will have some difficulty in persuading the people that the value of the contingency of widowhood with fatherless children represents only 4½d. out of 9d., and that the chances of a woman between 65 and 70
having an old age pension represents also 4½d. I cannot see it myself. The Parliamentary Secretary made a very startling statement when he said that 80 per cent. of the women, it is estimated, will marry insured persons. Women are insured under the National Health scheme in far greater relative proportions to those employed than are men. Of the employed women far more are under the National Health Insurance scheme than there are men employed relatively to their respective numbers, because the wages of women are relatively so low that there are few indeed who reach the stage when they pass out of the scheme on account of wages. To say that 80 per cent. of all women who are ever employed are going to be married to insured men seems to me, to be extraordinary. What about all the women who are employed as typists, stenographers, cashiers, clerks and all the rest, and who marry people who are never insured and are outside the National Health Insurance scheme altogether or who very soon pass out of it? Are they and all the unmarried women to be comprised within the remaining 20 per cent?

Sir K. WOOD indicated assent.

Mr. MITCHELL: That makes all the stronger the claim of the Mover of the Amendment. Surely it is a very small demand to make on the Government, even at the cost of £500,000 a year, that they should include that 20 per cent with their sisters in the 80 per cent. I prefer this scheme to no scheme: at all, but I do think the Government have some liability. At first there will be a large payment. You will very quickly reach your apex, and then your scheme will become normal, and eventually balance. Surely where 20 per cent. of uninsured women have paid, and still continue to pay contributions, there is no need for a cry of national impoverishment and national distress and for excluding them from benefit for which they have paid, and absolutely understood they would receive when they were introduced in the scheme.

Mr. RYE: As I understood the argument of the hon. Member for West Leicester (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence), he seems to think this Amendment ought to be accepted, because the widow of an
uninsured man does not get an equivalent benefit to the widow of an insured man. He said that all the benefit the widow of an uninsured man would get was her old age pension at 65, and there would be no benefit whatever to her children on her death. That cannot be right, because under Clause 4 orphans' pensions are paid in the case of a widow who dies after the commencement of the Act, and is insured at the date of her death.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: What the Bill does is this: If the woman is insured, and goes on being insured during her marriage, and her husband dies first, it is quite true when she subsequently dies her orphan children will get benefit, but the point to which I referred was, where a woman is insured and her husband is not insured, and she dies first. Then if subsequently her husband dies, the orphans will not get any benefit.

Mr. RYE: I entirely agree, but I do not think that was the view the hon. Member put forward.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: Yes. it was.

Mr. RYE: It certainly was not put forward by other speakers. The whole essence of this Bill is contributions, and out of the quantum of contributions the benefits are to flow. However sympathetic we may be with the case put forward by the Mover of the Amendment —land I am very sympathetically inclined —the fact remains that the contribution for the widow's pension is to flow from a larger contribution by the insured husband, and however sympathetic we may be, it is hardly reasonable to say that the wife of an uninsured person, and who is herself as insured person, should receive the same benefit as that given to the widow of an insured person. The payments are not equivalent, and unless you make them equivalent, you cannot reasonably expect that the benefits should be the same.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: I regret that the Minister has not seen fit to accept this Amendment, or, at any rate, some of it, which he could have translated into his own words if he cared to do so. I do not think that in respect of the person who is continuously unemployed the Parliamentary Secretary met the case which was put forward from these benches,
with regard to the prolongation of Insurance Act, because, as I understand it, the approved society will only continue the membership of an insured person so long as the Employment Exchange provides documents to prove that the man has been genuinely seeking employment. It is a fact that a considerable number of unemployed people cannot be continued in their insured membership of approved societies under that Act. With regard to the main point of the Amendment, the hon. Member who spoke last suggested that we were declaring that the woman in the case mentioned in the Amendment should have exactly the same benefit as if she were the widow of an insured person. If we are not to give the same benefit to her, I hope the Minister will tell us what benefit he is willing to give in a, case of that kind. Let me put the case in another way. There are two types of men who would be dealt with by this Amendment. First, there is the non-manual worker whose income exceeds £250 per annum, who dies and leaves a widow. Then there is the other case of the person mentioned by the Mover of the Amendment. I am not sure whether the Government is not animated in this way—that with regard to the widow of the man in the first category, they will probably say that the widow ought to be able to take care of herself, as her husband had been in receipt of an income of £4 16s. a week. I would not accept that view. With regard to the second category I feel a strong case has been made out, and that the Minister has not met it. There is the case of the man who has usually followed an employment in respect of which there is a contract of service. He is an insured person; he is all right and if anything happens to him, his widow and children are provided for by this scheme. But if that man leaves his employment in factory or workshop, and enters into a little business on his own account and has an income of anything from £l to £2 a week, and the wife of that man follows her ordinary vocation, and is insured—that, in fact, is the case about which we are most concerned.

Sir K. WOOD: He can become a voluntary contributor.

Mr. DAVIES: There are cases where such a man cannot become a contributor
at all, because there are men who fall into that category who have never been insured. If it meets the hon. Gentlemen, I will deal with that specific case. Let me return to the man who has not been within the National Health Insurance scheme at all; who has a little business of his own, and whose total income does not exceed £2 a week. The wife of that man follows her ordinary occupation and is insured under the National Health Insurance scheme. That is the case about which we are most concerned. The Minister declares that we have put an extreme case on this side. I am very much afraid he has put an extreme case on the other side. "Take the case," he said, "of the widow falling within the Amendment. She will contribute only 104 contributions, and be entitled to receive 10s. pension for life." If he is in sympathy with this Amendment, as I believe he must be—and every hon. Member will have been moved by this fact, that a woman who has contributed to this scheme from 16 years of age to 50 is not entitled to draw a penny piece in respect of her membership under this scheme—and if he feels that 104 contributions are not enough to secure any benefit in this case, I should like him to suggest what would secure a pension in respect of this woman. The wording of our Amendment may not be right, but so far as I am concerned I should be glad if the Minister would give us a better reason for not accepting it.
I can assure the right hon. Gentleman, as one who has to deal with the administration of National Health Insurance, that I know that the argument about actuarial calculations and the value of this benefit or the value of the contributions will not weigh with the people who will suffer in connection with this scheme. There are three categories that fall within the scheme now. First of all, next January a widow, with dependent children, will draw benefits under this scheme without having paid one penny piece under the scheme. She will draw that benefit merely in respect of the membership of her husband under the National Health Insurance scheme. Category No. 2 is this, that a woman who is left a widow, whether or not she has dependent children, will draw benefits under this scheme after the scheme begins to operate. The third category is this,
that the woman will be entitled to the 10s. merely by the fact that she reaches 65 years of age. Now, when the woman who is married to an uninsured man begins to compare her position, on the death of her husband, with the three categories that I have mentioned, I feel positive she will be indignant because she is left out in the cold, especially in view of the fact that she has contributed towards this scheme and is not going to draw any benefit when she becomes a widow.
I want this Clause to be dealt with without any political bias, but I want to make this observation: This woman will be justified, in my view, in saying to her neighbour: "I feel positive that I am called upon to pay contributions towards subsidising the pensions of other people." There will be justification for that statement, and the position of the woman in respect of whom we have been speaking to-night, on this side of the House, in my view, is an unfair position. The Minister is not just towards her, and I feel positive that if he does not accept the spirit of this Amendment and translate the spirit into words that will fit this point of view, he will regret his action to-night.

Mr. NAYLOR: From the observations of the Minister of Health and the Parliamentary Secretary one would suppose that they think that every woman must, sooner or later, become a widow. One would imagine that that was in their thought when they spoke of the great cost that would be incurred in the adoption of the Amendment. The Parliamentary Secretary suggests that the cost would be half a million. Has the hon. Gentleman considered the other side of the case— that there must be many men subscribing under the scheme who are not married, and never will be, and whose contributions, therefore, are covering the liability that the fund will never sustain so far as they are concerned. Again, there are married couples under the scheme who will not have children, and whose contributions will, therefore, cover liability on behalf of others. Would not the loss of half a million arising out of this Amendment be counterbalanced by what is gained in the cases that I have mentioned? I represent a division in London where a large number of women are insured, and are married to
men who are not insured. These women go out to work at charing, seeing their husbands are unable to earn sufficient to keep the house going. The woman is paying the insurance money, yet she is not to benefit under this scheme because she marries a man who is not insured! In the same street—it maybe—there are the wives of citizens who are not insured, who will benefit under this scheme by virtue of their husband's contribution. That surely is not fair to those who are left as a result of the Bill making no provision for them, and for the simple reason that they have married men who are not insured under the scheme, though they themselves are paying towards it. I hope the Minister may see his way clear to reconsider the decision that he has given to the Committee.

Mr. HADEN GUEST: I want to join my hon. Friend who has just spoken in regard to a large part, indeed of London generally, where insured people will be excluded by this particular provision. A large number of these women are living under very, very poor conditions, people whose children, because the mothers have to go out to work, are very often neglected, and who are precisely the kind of people that, I am sure, the promoters of the Bill, before they had got the actuarial calculations, when they were still thinking of general principles, desired to help, and who are, in fact, left out. It is not only a question of war-pensioners. There are a great many in London who are unable to work, married women. There are street traders and those of miscellaneous occupations, who make up so large a part of the people employed in London in occupations which are not insurable. I ask the Minister, if it is going to cost half a million to bring in these widows, how much is it going to cost to keep the widows out? How much is it going to cost in poor relief, in hospital relief, not to mention actual loss by the devitalisation of the children of the widows and others—how much is it going to cost? I think that is a matter which the actuaries will be able to estimate. There is another question which the Parliamentary Secretary did not answer, a very important question, which I venture to press, what is the worth of the insurance to a woman who begins at the age of 16? It is all very well for the hon. Gentleman to start
his level of calculations at the age of 25. At the age of 25 a large number of women have fallen out of the category of insured persons. I think this particular Clause showing a discrimination against women which is very undesirable. I fail to see why arrangements cannot be made, though they may be difficult and complicated, to put a woman who has a responsibility equal to that of a man with regard to children on the same footing as if she were a male contributor.

Sir K. WOOD: And pay the same contributions?

Mr. GUEST: It may be difficult, but it can be met. It is a matter for full discussion.

Sir K. WOOD: Would the hon. Member say whether he suggests that the women should pay the same contributions?

Mr. GUEST: If the hon. Gentleman will accept the spirit of this Amendment, I do not see why he should not find a way of meeting this without penalising the woman. I cannot forbear pressing this point. I really do not see why women should be penalised in this Bill which is supposed to give aid to women. One is justified in asking, Is the main plank in this proposal to provide pensions and relief, or is the main plank to cut down what is given to the narrowest possible limits?

Captain FOXCROFT: I fully appreciate that a woman pays her contribution in order to obtain an old age pension, and that a man pays his contribution in order to obtain not only an old age pension, but also a pension for his widow and children. I cannot see why the Government should not allow an insured woman who marries an uninsured man to pay, if she chooses, the same insurance as her husband would pay had he been insured. I ask the Minister seriously to consider that point, which, I am sure, appeals very much to all sections in this House and outside.

Mr. SNOWDEN: May I for the second time intervene in this discussion to put one simple question? Is it not a fact that the actuarial value of the 2d. per week paid from 16 years to 65—well I will put it in another way. Is it not a fact that the value of the old age pension from 65 to 70, beginning at 16, is a penny a week?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Any intervention in our debates on the part of the right hon. Gentleman is to be encouraged as far as possible. It is not the fact that the value of the old age pension from 65 to 70 is a contribution of a penny a week for a girl entering insurance at the age of 16. What we have to consider in an insurance scheme is not whether every individual who enters the scheme gets eventually the full equivalent of his contributions, but we have to consider whether the benefits which are possible are on the whole equivalent to the aggregate of the contributions. That is the proper basis of an insurance system. What hon. Members do not see is that they are taking a particular case which is, as a matter of fact, of comparatively rare occurence. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] They take a particular case and say that because the person insured will not have equivalent benefits to their contributions it is unjust to that person. The hon. Member for North Southwark (Mr. Guest) pointed out that exactly the same argument could be adduced in the case of bachelors who never marry but who will have to pay their contributions under this Bill. Of course they will never leave a widow.

Mr. GUEST: But they do not have any children to look after.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: We insure them all the same, and we know that in the case of a bachelor that contingency cannot arise. Therefore the hon. Member is perfectly right in saying that in that case also the benefits are not equivalent to the contributions. It is so again in the case of a married couple who have no children at all. Of course a man cannot leave any provision for children he has not got. Take the case of a girl at 16 who enters insurance. You must not assume that she is going to marry an insured man and be exposed to this hardship. As a matter of fact, she is insuring against a whole range of contingencies, and one of those contingencies may be that after entering insurance at the age of 16 she may marry an insured man, and in that case she will get all the benefits that accrue to the widow or the wife of an insured man. While it is easy to pick out these cases and say if this or that happens they will not get the full benefits of their contributions, that is only the same hardship that a man
suffers who insures against a fire and never has one. I think the difficulty which hon. Members are finding is that they have not appreciated the fact that this is an insurance scheme and not a scheme for the provision of pensions for the needy.

Mr. THOMAS: The principal point has not been answered by the right hon. gentleman. I do not say that the Minister of Health wilfully avoided it, but diplomatically he slided over the query, and he seemed to forget that the Parliamentary Secretary, had already spoken. The right hon. gentleman says that we are imagining something which cannot arise. Even if it does, he says it is a very remote contingency, of which no real notice can be taken. But he forgot that the ground upon which it was rejected by the Parliamentary Secretary was the cost, his estimate being £500,000. Which are we going to reconcile?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am much obliged to the right hon. gentleman for calling attention to what might seem to be an inconsistency. I think it is very easily explained. When I said that the contingency to which hon. Members opposite had called attention was a rare one, I was speaking of the contingency of an insured woman marrying an uninsured man who is not a person of independent means—I think the hon. Member for East Middlesbrough (Miss Wilkinson) suggested that he might be a hawker, or something of that kind. That was the kind of contingency which I represented as being of comparatively rare occurrence. I should imagine that in the greater number of cases in which an insured woman marries an uninsured man, she will be marrying a man who is not in employment because he has independent means.

Mr. THOMAS: The right hon. Gentleman cannot get over the fact that he is answering a case for the specific Amendment, and the case presented from, this side is, shortly, this: The particular cases upon which this Amendment bears merely provide old age pensions between 65 and 70. That is not in dispute. My right hon. Friend asked a simple question: Is it not true that the evidence at the disposal of the Ministry—and it was equally at our disposal—clearly establishes the fact that the contribution necessary to provide that
benefit is 1d.? The Minister has not answered that question; I now repeat it. If it is not 1d., will the Minister tell us what the amount is, because, whatever it is, the difference between it and the amount that these women are being compelled to pay is the amount to which they are robbed of benefits on their contributions, for other people's benefit.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Perhaps, in answering a little while ago, I a little lost the thread of the question which the right hon. Gentleman put to me, and to which he asked for a specific answer. I do not want to conceal it for one moment. I think the answer I have already given is the real answer, and is a complete answer. As to what is the equivalent of an old age pension between 65 and 70 to a girl entering insurance at 16, the answer is 3d., not 1d. That is for the old age pension alone, but to that there must also be added the orphan's pension to which the widow is entitled.

Mr. THOMAS: I am sorry to interrupt, but this is rather important for the purpose of record. Does the Minister make that statement, that the figure is 3d., on the clear and specific case presented, as being the responsible actuarial calculation made by those who are advising him?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes.

Mr. THOMAS: All I can say is that it is amazing that this difference should arise in a few months. I make no other observation.

Mr. LANSBURY: The discussion that has taken place between the front benches as to what this actually costs is very interesting. I do not know whether the penny applies to the whole body of people who will be insured and that you are taking out just this one category of women and getting a fixed sum for them alone apart from all others. If you are that is rather an unfair way of dealing with the figures, because, as I understand this arrangement, it is that all the money is going to be paid into a certain pool, and, if it pans out all right, the Government will not have to provide anything. I do not understand that the Government has to pay anything more than the deficiency that will remain to be paid over and above what the people themselves contribute to the fund.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It is equivalent to £750,000,000.

Mr. LANSBURY: I have heard that. I remember on the National Health Insurance Bill how the actuary's figures were tossed about. They were very swollen indeed, and there are very big funds that have accumulated. I am taking part in the valuation of a pension fund which the actuaries have compelled us to put on a certain footing and which gives us only swollen reserves. When we speak to the actuary about it he tells us they have to make extra provision. They have to take everything into account in order to preserve their own reputation, and at the risk of ruining my own reputation, in another sixty years. I believe those who are here at that time, if such a pernicious scheme as this is still in operation—I am confident that no such sum as that which is talked about now will come from the State to pay for these benefits. The two Ministers have given us, as usual, a very great deal of sympathy. When I was young I read "Alice in Wonderland." I read about the Walrus and the Carpenter and the crocodile tears they wept, swallowing the oysters, and it always reminds me of that when I hear the bucket-loads of sympathy and the deep feeling they have for the poor. Contrast the attitude of the two right hon. Gentlemen with that of the Chancellor of the Exchequer the other day. Because a couple of representatives of the landed interest shook their fingers across the floor at him he abjectly gave them £500,000 a year as a present.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must not refer to that subject now.

Mr. LANSBURY: I only wanted to use it as an illustration of the spirit of class sympathy that finds expressions in action. We get sympathy but we do not get anything to back it up. When the people who have got plenty want something they get a little more than mere sympathy.
A point that has not been met by other speakers is the case of the woman who has married an ex-service man. I am surprised to hear someone jeer at that a little while ago. In my district there are a number of women who, out of sheer goodness of heart I believe, have taken men who for some reason or other have not been given pensions by this grateful
country. I know cases where women are supporting such men and they will go on paying, and when the man dies they get nothing whatever, but they have to go on paying into the fund after he has died in order that they may get the Old Age Pension. The man may at this time only be earning a little money, but it may be enough to help pay the rent and keep things going, and you will leave her high and dry with her children if any. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member will come to Bow I will introduce him to some of these people and he will be able to explain why he voted against this Amendment.
I want further to emphasise the point that you are not saving anything by this. You are simply, as the hon. Member for South-East Southwark (Mr. Naylor) said, lumping it on to the locality for what you call the horrors and rigours of the poor. It is perfectly disgusting to do it in this way. When you come to the unemployed man I wonder that the Parliamentary Secretary has the impudence to stand at that Box and to talk as he does, considering the statements he made when he sat in the seat now occupied by the right hon. Member for Carmarthen (Sir A. Mond) last year. He knows perfectly well the kind of speeches he made on the subject for the men who were being turned off the unemployed list. Now he is standing at that Box and telling us to-night that under the Unemployed Workmen Act or under the National Health Insurance Act a man who has been genuinely seeking work that nothing will happen to the money paid in, and that he will be considered all right. He knows perfectly well that under the present administration there is a quarter of a million men and women already struck off since August last. There is no dispute about those figures, because they are the figures of the Minister of Labour. A large proportion of these have been turned off because they were charged with not genuinely seeking employment. What guarantee have we that a man and woman may not marry and the woman has been paying in at work in some industry or other since 16 and the man has paid in also and then, for some reason over which he has no control— nowadays you cannot say that unemployment is the fault of the individual; captains of industry tell you that and I am sure hon. Members on the other side
will believe them—you get a man who all at once is thrown out of employment and he is out of employment, as many of them are to-day, for two or three years, then comes disappointment and semi-starvation, the man gets some disease or other and dies and the wife and whatever children are left are penalised and all the money they have paid in is lost. Yet the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Gentlemen tell us that they want to meet us and to consider fairly any reasonable Amendment.
Now we have put this reasonable Amendment the hon. and learned Gentleman said there would be so-and-so, and in the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman, who is usually so very lucid, did not seem to know whether there would be so-and-so and he did not seem to be sure whether it was a matter of great importance or small importance, but whether it is a big or little thing he has said nothing at all. This is another instance of the sort of class legislation, class feeling that dominates the other side. If we were appealing for the landed class, hon. Members opposite would give whatever was demanded. They have given £500,000 a year recently, but they will not give to these women that which every decent-minded man and woman in the country knows they ought to have, and that is, the value of the money which they pay into this fund.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I should like to ask the Minister how he reconciles the speech he made at the beginning with the speech he made at the end? In his speech at the beginning, he said that the woman's contribution was solely for the old age pension that she would get, and that the benefit for widows and orphans depended on the man's contribution. In the later speech he took exactly the opposite line. On which leg does he stand? If he stands on the first leg, we are entitled to ask him to show that the old age benefit is an adequate return for the contribution paid in. We do not, of course, ask him to show that it will be an adequate return for each individual woman. There will necessarily be a large number who do not reach the age of 65 and who will get no return for their contributions. That is insurance. What is not an insurance principle is for women to begin to be
insured at the age of 16 and to remain insured when they are married without, as a class, getting an aggregate benefit equal to the contributions which they have paid.

12 M.

Mr. GIBBINS: The Minister made a statement as to an unemployed man having his case met when he cannot afford to pay for stamps. As a branch secretary, I say that that is not true. A man who has not been working and has paid no contributions for a certain period is struck out of insurance altogether. In cases where the number of stamps required are very few, usually the trade society comes to his assistance and puts so many stamps on his card. To suggest that the man who is unemployed for a long period is likely to be assisted out of the fund is not true. I have known men even in connection with the National Health Insurance who because of unemployment have been placed outside the scope of the benefit, and they have had to pay 104 contributions even to qualify for the ordinary Health Insurance Sickness allowance. What will happen when it comes to qualifying for a pension of 10s. a week? If we are to rely upon sympathy from Government departments, what are we to expect for a man who has paid contributions for 40 years and cannot pay during the last two or three years. If we are to depend upon the sympathy of a Government department, what will happen to hundreds and thousands of men will be that they will get no pension. Why should a man after paying for 40 years have the last three years set up as the standard upon which to qualify for a pension? Why not take any three years. Why not take the prime of life or the first three years or the first ten years? At 60 years of age his chance of employment gets less, and you pick out the worst period of his life to judge him by. It is grossly unfair. The Government itself is causing men to be withdrawn from industry, or using a certain amount of pressure—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not know that what the hon. Member is saying has very much to do with the Amendment under discussion. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] I am quite open to be persuaded on the point.

Mr. GIBBINS: The Parliamentary Secretary said that these people could be assured of assistance and sympathy. They
should not be disqualified because of long periods of employment. This Amendment ought to be accepted.

Mr. THURTLE: The Parliamentary Secretary has said that if a man is unemployed for a considerable period, say two years, his health insurance is still maintained. I am given to understand that if a man is unemployed for a long period, say 12 months, and has not stamped his health insurance card his health insurance lapses. I would like to know if that is a fact?

Mr. BUCHANAN: The last point raised is a very important point. There is a large number of men one or two, and, in some districts, three years out of employment. Those men after 12 months are automatically excluded from national health insurance. What we want to know is if such a man dies will his widow be eligible for benefit under this fund? We maintain that as the Bill stands at present unless this Amendment is accepted the widow of the man who, prior to his death, had been unemployed for a considerable time will not be eligible to receive any benefit. What is the exact position?

Sir K. WOOD: The statement which I made previously to the Committee is perfectly correct. The statement which the hon. Gentleman made just now represented the state of affairs before the Act extending the period was passed—

Mr. GIBBINS: When was that?

Sir K. WOOD: Two years ago. The position to-day is as I stated it to the Committee. However long a man may be unemployed, provided that he complies with the conditions of the Act, as I indicated an hour ago—

Mr. LANSBURY: How can he prove that?

Sir K. WOOD: That is another issue. A very flat contradiction of my statement has been made—that an insured man went out after twelve months and lost his insurance benefit. That is quite incorrect. As long as a man can fulfil the conditions of the Act, that he is genuinely seeking work, he is retained in health insurance without any limitation of time whatever.

Mr. BUCHANAN: If the local employment committee for any reason disquali-
fies a man as not genuinely seeking work that man is disqualified, and not only because he is not genuinely seeking work, but if the committee think he is not liable to get work because of age or some such thing. Such a man at the end of twelve months is automatically excluded from the Insurance Act.

Sir K. WOOD: I cannot do more than again state the case. The hon. Gentleman is referring to the period before the prolongation of the Insurance Act was passed. That made provision for the people who are genuinely unemployed as long as they satisfy the conditions laid down, without any limitation of time.

Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALD: Am I right in assuming that that is only so long as a man is included on the live register of unemployed?

Sir K. WOOD: I do not know; I cannot say that. I am endeavouring to point out that the statement that a man went out after twelve months is quite incorrect. As to the conditions laid down, the proper time for discussion will be on Clause 5.

Mr. MacDONALD: The point is a simple point and calls for a precise answer. There seems to be some doubt, not on the point that has been replied to, because that is accurate; but an answer is essential to this Bill, this Clause and this Amendment. It is very essential to this Bill, to this Clause and this Amendment. Is the test of whether a man is genuinely seeking work or not to be whether his name remains on the live register of unemployed? That is a very simple question, and the Government have no business to ask the Committee to pass this Clause until it can tell us what the Clause means. Until it answers that very simple question, we do not know what we are voting about at all. I would remind my hon. Friend that the Bill which has been introduced to-day for the purpose of dealing with unemployment is going to increase the number of people whose names disappear from the live register. Therefore, we are giving the Government certain powers regarding benefits under this Act and at the same time the Government are taking power to reduce the number of beneficiaries under this Act, by a Bill they have introduced already. I think we must have a very definite reply.

Sir K. WOOD: I am informed that the live register has nothing whatever to do with the test as to whether a man is genuinely employed or not. It is solely a matter for the approved society itself.

Miss WILKINSON: On a point of Order. Surely the approved society does not come in. The whole point is whether the local rota committee states that this man is not genuinely seeking work. Is it not a matter, not so much about the live register, but whether the man, during the time he was unemployed, was actually in receipt of unemployment benefit, whether covenanted or expended, and as soon as a man is turned off the rota committee he gets a red form which is marked that he is not genuinely seeking work? You get great areas like Tees-side, where there is no job to be found, and yet these men are turned off as not genuinely seeking work. Not only are these men being told that they cannot get employment benefit, but you are actually proposing to starve their women and children.

Mr. THOMAS: I do not know quite where we are getting with this Amendment, and I am quite sure the Governmnt do not know. Originally a very simple issue was before the Committee, and it was based upon this Amendment to ascertain from the Government whether the contributions exacted from women at 16 years of age were more than sufficient to meet the benefits that are provided. We definitely stated that from our information the amount required was not 3d. as exacted, but 1d. Then an issue was raised of supplementary benefits, which we disputed, and now my hon. Friend gets up and definitely says that, notwithstanding the changes in the National Health Insurance Act, it is not true that an unemployed person over 12 months is deprived of benefit. That is your statement, and you follow it up by saying it is true that there may be limitations, but those limitations, as to whether a man is genuinely seeking work, are determined by the approved society. I say that is not true. I not only know it is not law, but I speak as one responsible for the administration of the fund. I am, as my hon. Friend knows, the president of the largest society in the country, and I not only say it is not true, but I go beyond that and say there is no jurisdiction with the approved societies. My hon. Friend knows perfectly
well that this is not determined by the approved society but is determined by the rota committee, which is independent. Here is a conflict of fact, and I want hon. Members on the other side of the Committee to observe that when they go into the Lobby they have to choose on these facts, and I say deliberately again, it is not true, as my hon. Friend must know. Let me take the case of a man who is 62 years of age. There are many of them. It is within the power of the Committee to say that he is deprived merely on the ground that his age of 62 is not such as to place him within the labour market. It is not only within their power, but it has been said. What has the approved society to do in that case? Is it not true that the approved society has to accept the verdict? The specific point I want the hon. Gentleman to answer is this. Smith, a miner, is unemployed, and has been unemployed for 14 months. Under the provisions of the National Health Insurance Act he is kept on the live register, but the rota committee come to the conclusion that he did not look for work, or they come to the conclusion that a miner of 62 should not be expected to get employment—that the liability of the employer would be too large—or they come to the conclusion that he might have got a job in Scotland, although he lives in Wales, but he did not take the trouble to go to Scotland to look for it. All these three categories enable them to disqualify him. Is that true or not? I ask the Minister, on the three categories I have put before him, whether it is within the power of a committee to say that such a man has not legitimately sought employment and that he can therefore be excluded?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The right hon. Gentleman has been so positive in his statement that the information given to the Committee was incorrect, that I confess for a moment he shook my confidence. I therefore thought it desirable that I should confirm that information. It is very important that the Committee should not go wrong on this point, because, as the right hon. Gentleman has said, it is an important point. May I submit to the Committee that we must not confuse in this matter the provisions of the Unemployment Insurance Acts and provisions which relate only to health insurance.
What we are here dealing with is health insurance; we are dealing with the prolongation of insurance Act which relates to health insurance and the benefits receivable under that Act. The right hon. Gentleman appears to think that the test which is laid down under prolongation of insurance Act has to be decided by an organisation set up under the Unemployment Insurance Act, but that is not so. The rota committees and the employment exchanges have nothing to do with this matter so far as the prolongation of insurance Act is concerned. What happens is that the approved society inquires into the circumstances of their own members through their committee of management elected by themselves. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I assure hon. Members that is so. They are the body to decide whether the conditions are met or not, and therefore it is not necessary for hon. Members to be afraid that any alteration in the practice of the rota committees or in the Unemployment Insurance Act will have any effect whatever in this connection.

Mr. THOMAS: Surely my right hon. Friend will agree at once that there can be no possible object in anyone deliberately deceiving the Committee? There must be some common agreement upon one thing: those who administer the Act either do not understand the instructions they receive, or, alternately, there may be new instructions given at a critical moment. I am speaking in the recollection of a number of people who administer the Act when I say that the National Health Insurance Act gives the amount of maximum unemployment— with which I am dealing, as my hon. Friend dealt with that Act—and I say that the statement made that the absolute determining authority is the Approved Society is in comformity with the experience of those administering the Act. It is no use the hon. Gentleman dissenting: he does not administer the Act. Do let us try to be fair. I am not going to stand here and make a statement as one administering the Act, and here an hon. Gentleman who does not administer the Act shaking his head. If there is a legitimate difference of opinion let us put it right. If there has been a misunderstanding or a difference of interpretation let us put it right. But do let us. at least, give credit to those who say: this is our actual experience! The
Amendment with which we are dealing we are keen on this, because in the administration of the National Insurance Act we find large numbers of people who suffer through no fault of their own, from causes over which they have no control, and from which the Friendly Society cannot save them. All we are anxious to do is to see that these victims, whoever they may be, shall not be further penalised by any mistake in this Act.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: We should like the position made quite clear. I think the Minister has raised the real point at issue. As I see it, when a member of an Approved Society has been unemployed for a long period the Society is entitled under the Prolongation of Insurance Act, to continue his membership of the Society. The Society must, however, secure evidence of the fact that the man is genuinely unemployed and seeking employment. The point arises in this way: Although the Approved Society can determine whether or not the man's membership is to be continued it is the practice of the Approved Society to get the evidence that is necessary. There are a large number of people who are now insured under the National Health Insurance Act who will be debarred from this scheme on the grounds I have mentioned. It is no use for the Ministry of Health telling us therefore, that the determining factor is the Approved Society. I say definitely that there will be a large number of people who are now insured under the National Health Insurance Act who will be debarred from this scheme on the ground that although they are unemployed there is no documentary evidence available to prove the fact.

Sir K. WOOD: I will try again to make the point clear on the authority of the Controller of National Insurance who, I suppose, ought to know as much about this as anybody. He assures me that the Committee of the Society elected by its Members solely decides whether a person is genuinely unemployed or not. The right hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) talked about instructions and documents issued to societies. Societies have alone the responsibility for deciding this matter. The only possible thing that can occur is that certain societies could, on their own account, have made a reference to quarters to which the right hon.
Gentleman refers. That is not a widespread system, and the Controller knows of no such system. As a matter of fact, the societies are anxious to keep as many members as possible in order to get the administrative allowance. They are the sole people to decide, and, so far as the Controller of the National Insurance scheme is concerned, he believes they do decide. He has no knowledge of their reference to documents. That is the exact position, I am instructed.

Mr. MacDONALD: I beg to move "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
On the one hand, we have the assurance from the Government, and I am perfectly certain it is sincerely given, but around me are men actually administering the Act. They say it is the practice that you must give documentary evidence about the genuineness of the unemployed man. What more natural thing for an Approved Society to do than to ask the Employment Exchange or one of its Committees what is their view in this particular matter. We are assured by those administering the Act that this is often done. We cannot give power under this Bill on an assumption which, as a matter of fact, is not true in actual practice. That is the evidence we have. It is a statement on the part of the right hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) and others who do actually administer the law. Supposing the statement is true, on the information the Government have received, what happens? If it is merely the approved societies which decide whether a man is genuinely unemployed or not, their decision up to the passing of the Bill related only to the benefits under the Health Insurance Act. Under this Bill that the decision of the approved society not only involves a man with relation to the benefits of health insurance but involves his potential widow and children. Nothing could be more unsatisfactory than that and nothing could be more unsatisfactory than to put the administration of this Bill into the hands of a committee that is charged with administering a fund which has nothing whatever to do with this question. What a confused state of legislation. I do not think the Government have foreseen this extraordinary administrative incorrectitude. The position is
so serious and the confusion still remains so much that I think the Government would be well advised to allow us to report Progress so that we may meet to-morrow. [Interruption.] This is not a small point. I think the Committee will agree it is necessary that inquiries should be made on both sides so that we may assure ourselves that the practice is such as to be safe and that we may begin the discussion with the assurance that we are proceeding on safe lines.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Douglas Hogg): I think that the Leader of the Opposition, in his eloquent suggestion that we should report Progress because of the confusion, has a little lost sight of the Amendment we are discussing, and the reason why any confusion has arisen. The confusion, if any, is between the experience which is put forward by the right hon. Gentlemen opposite—they will not imagine I am challenging their good faith—and the information which the Government have from responsible officials as to the administration of the Health Insurance Act. The suggestion made by the Leader of the Opposition is that we ought to know whether or not the statement of the practice from the Opposition side is the correct one, or the information we have is correct. If we were discussing at this moment who was, or who was not, an insured man within the meaning of this Bill, that, I think, would be of vital importance. If we were discussing the definition of insured person it would be eminently proper that we should be quite sure we knew whether the Health Insurance practice is as is suggested. But the Amendment which the Committee is at present discussing, or at any rate is purporting to be discussing, is an Amendment which suggests that where there is an insured woman who is the wife of an uninsured man she shall have certain benefits. If, in fact, the definition of an insured man in this Bill is too narrow, then by all means, when we come to that definition, let us widen it. We do not overcome the difficulty by saying that the definition is too narrow, and in an isolated case we ought to widen it so that a widow, whether insured or not, should get benefit. The Committee will notice that, assuming this Amendment be passed, it would merely have the effect of giving benefit to some widows
of some men, who ought to be insured, and continue to exclude the vast majority of widows of such men who were not themselves insured. This is not the place at which it becomes of importance to consider whether the definition is what we think it is or what they think it, is, because we intend, as they do, that the definition of an insured man shall be of a reasonable latitude and width. We can consider that when we get to Clause 2 or Clause 5. We can then clear up and discuss that matter, if there be any confusion. I am sure that when we get to Clause 2 we shall be quite prepared to report Progress.

Mr. THOMAS: I am sure the Committee is always indebted to the right hon. Gentleman for any contributions he makes, because he is always genuinely anxious to help and guide it. In this case, unfortunately, he did not happen to be in the Committee when two speeches were delivered. If he had been, he would not have made the speech he has just delivered. Let me recall to the Committee what it is we are really discussing. This difficulty is created by two confused statements by the Minister. The Amendment proposed from this side said that we believed the contribution that you are now exacting from these women is too high considering the benefits they receive. We proceeded to ask the Minister, keeping in mind the evidence we had and which tended to show that actuarially he could secure old age pensions for widows between 65 and 70 for a contribution of 1d. per week, to say what was necessary from the age of 16. That was the object of the Amendment. The first reply we got from the Parliamentary Secretary was that while he agreed there was considerable hardship, and while there was much to be said for the argument, the Committee should please keep in mind that this was an insurance scheme and that the liability was unlimited. While not committing himself to a definite figure, he said he believed this would involve 20,000 people and cost £500,000.
That was the first reply we got. It was so astounding, and so contradictory to all our investigations, and ran so foul of the evidence we had, that we felt that we were bound to press it. Then a simple question was put by the late Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Snowden) as to whether it was or was not true that the.
benefits that the widows received could be obtained for one penny. The Minister of Health said, "Certainly I will answer that." He spoke for ten minutes and then did not answer it. I got up and said that it was just as well that the Committee should have a reply, and the Minister remarked that he had forgot it when making his remarks. His information, he said, was that instead of it being 1d., it was 3d. That left us more confused than ever. The right hon. Gentleman opposite shakes his head. It is getting a bad habit with him, and it is a habit for which I must correct him. When we say that the information at our disposal is the same as that at the disposal of the Ministry he must not shake his head, because we do not tell lies. I repeat, whether he shakes his head or not, that we went into this question, and the actuarial advice at our disposal was that this benefit was worth a penny, and we make that statement on that authority. Then, suddenly, a new issue comes up, and in order to make this benefit worth more than a penny, another speaker intervenes and says that this does not concern old age pensions alone, that is not all that these widows get. There are other benefits which we cannot calculate. We say, let us calculate them—and immediately there comes up this emergency difficulty of these other people. It all became so confusing that my right hon. Friend says that as it is now twenty minutes to one we are all getting thick-headed, that as this is so important and affects so many people we had better discuss it at 3.45 to-morrow afternoon. The Minister of Health must remember that when posterity is blessing him and all his works they will point to this one spot as a blot upon it all, and it will be recalled that it was done at a quarter to one, when everybody was mixed up. He must want to avoid that confusion. We say clearly and definitely that the Amendment now before the Committee is to prevent you exacting from a certain class of women in this country a contribution disproportionate to the benefits they will receive; we want to do elementary justice to them.

Sir ALFRED MOND: I have listened to the Debate very carefully because we are dealing with a matter of the greatest importance. I rise to support the Motion of the Leader of the Opposition. I have
listened for something like two hours to a duel that has been going on between the Ministry of Health and the Parliamentary Secretary and members of the Opposition as to how National Health Insurance is or is not administered. As I understand it, the position finally is this—and it is an important point. That whereas approved societies have full power and discretion to keep people on their books who are unemployed, yet in practice the only method by which they can find out whether the unemployment is genuine or not is by going to the local employment committee. If that is so, I must point out how important it is that this mysterious Bill, which we have discussed once before and which should have been before Members of the House before we began to consider this Bill at all—a Bill which is in the hands of the Press but not available to Members—should really be before us if we are intelligently to discuss the Amendment which is now the subject of our debate. Obviously, if that Bill is going to disfranchise and take out of employment benefit a large number of those who are now receiving benefits and thereby render them insured persons, the scope of the Amendment will be extremely wide. That is why I do not agree with the Attorney-General. He pointed out that the question as to who was an assured person could be discussed on a subsequent Clause, but we have no pledge as to what the Government are going to do in that matter. We have now the power to say that a woman paying her contributions can provide for herself. The real question is what the number is likely to be. If it is large, the Amendment becomes important, and the finances become more difficult. There, again, we have had most conflicting accounts from the Minister of Health and the Parliamentary Secretary. I suggest that if one only spoke it would be much better. The Parliamentary Secretary says that the number will be large and the cost so much; the Minister of Health blandly says that really it is not worth discussing. The Minister of Health in effect says that a woman, instead of being so careless as to neglect the precaution of getting an insurance card for her fiancee before she marries him or have the bad luck to fall in love with an uninsured man—and that after
this Bill becomes law this will be a new crime in this country—should marry a man who is a millionaire.

The CHAIRMAN: The right hon. Gentleman is speaking to the Amendment and not to the motion to report Progress.

Sir A. MOND: I will gladly turn to that. We have discussed this important Amendment so long, and we have been so confused by the contradictory statements from the Front Bench, we are so ignorant of the mysterious Bill which we shall all find on our tables in the morning, that I do not think the Government will lose anything by accepting the Motion to report Progress. Then we shall be able to resume our debate with a general chorus instead of discordant notes from the Front Bench; they will be able to reconcile their differences in the meantime, and many of us who have grave doubts as to how to vote on this particular Amendment will be able to form a clear and firm judgment as to how we shall vote.

Mr. MACKINDER: On the point of reporting Progress, I think it would be as well if the Committee were to adjourn this discussion until each side can fortify its opinion. The exact position is that the approved society does have to go to the rota committee for evidence as to whether or not a man is normally employed.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Not necessarily.

Mr. MACKINDER: Well, let me try to put it as one who commenced to administer the Insurance Act when it was first initiated and was a general secretary of an approved society; and I assure the Committee that those of us who have administered the Act as members of committees and otherwise ought to know something about it. The only place a committee can go to for real useful evidence at present is the rota committee. If the Minister of Health wants to adopt a new process, I would like to point out to the Committee where it is going to lead. At present the rota committees are combinations of various degrees of people. There is the employer and the workman, and this mixed committee decides whether or not a man is normally insurable. If the Minister of Health desires that the approved society shall discuss it from their own point of view, I can see that the two Departments are going to get mixed up. The approved society can decide on
their own evidence whether a man is normally insurable, but I want to point out to the Minister that if you get an approved society committee composed almost entirely of working men the sympathy will work in another direction and you will be getting the approved societies deciding that men are normally insurable as against the rota committee deciding that they are not normally insurable. What it may lead to will be that the Minister of Health, to prevent conflictions of opinion between their Department and the Ministry of Labour, will have to issue instructions to approved societies that they must accept the decision of the rota committee. It is quite evident that the two schemes cannot work side by side.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: On a point of Order. Is not the hon. Member speaking to the Amendment, and not to the Motion to report Progress?

The CHAIRMAN: I was in doubt on the point myself. I gathered that his argument was to illustrate the complexity of the subject, and that therefore it should be further dealt with on another occasion.

Mr. MACKINDER: I have no desire to take up the time of the Committee, but I suggest, if members on the other side will agree, that the Debate should be adjourned that they may seek their information as to how the approved societies do work. That may help to clarify their minds. We on this side do know how approved societies work, because we direct the work of the approved societies. If we say the approved societies do go to the rota committees for information and the Parliamentary Secretary says they do not, it would be better if the debate were adjourned to let the other side clarify its opinion and let us fortify ours. I do suggest that you cannot have two Departments with their Committees making two decisions about the same individual—the rota committee that he is not insurable and the approved society committee that he is—and the Bill ought to be amended to make the matter straight.

Mr. STEPHEN: I would like to suggest to the Minister that he. should accept this Motion to report Progress. The right hon. and learned Gentleman, the Attorney-General, the Member for West
Marylebone—I am sorry that Ministers shake their heads so much; if they kept them still we might make more progress.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I did it because the hon. Gentleman inaccurately described my constituency. I represent Marylebone

Mr. STEPHEN: I would very gladly have given way to the right hon. and learned Attorney-General, the Member for Marylebone, if he had made any sort of suggestion that I should do so, and then the Committee would not get into confusion by this head-shaking business, which seems to have done so much damage to-night. He has made the point that the question about which there is so much complexity does not really effect this Amendment, because he said it is only a question as to how wide a circle is included in the term insurance. I want to put it to the Minister that he and the Parliamentary Secretary already have agreed that this Amendment depends to a great extent upon the number of women that will be in this position, and the number of these women will be determined in large measure by how great a circumference this circle has with regard to the definition of the insured person So I think it is only reasonable that the Government should take this opportunity of reporting Progress, because it is going to mean a great deal to a certain section of these women and these people that are in a difficult position in the community, people whose lives have been hard. I am sure it is the intention of every Member of this Committee to try to make this Measure as workable as possible, and to try to make it so that it will not bear heavily upon any individual; and so, having met the point that has been made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, the Attorney-General, the Member for Marylebone, I hope the Minister will now agree to report Progress.

1.0 A.M.

Mr. T. SHAW: I hope the Minister will agree to report Progress until we all know exactly what does take place. When the Parliamentary Secretary say that the committee under the Health Insurance Act is the sole power—and those of us who says it is not— seeking information as to whether a person is genuinely unemployed, the statement is quite wide of the facts. I
venture to suggest to the Minister that as the conditions in the different societies, the different regions and the different districts vary it would be a very foolish thing to vote on an important matter until we know precisely exactly what the machinery is to be and how it is to function. I am quite satisfied that the Parliamentary Secretary is absolutely misinformed as to what takes place in certain cases and I venture to suggest that to him that it is the most frequent thing in the world for the Ministry of Health officials deliberately to seek from Ministry of Labour officials the facts regarding whether persons are genuinely unemployed and not with a desire to get the facts, with a desire to help the Minister to come to a conclusion as to what his policy should be with a desire to give the Ministry an opportunity of finding where it stands. I hope they will take the offer we give them to report progress so that they may know what these officials are doing and what are their intentions under the Bill, so that the House may know what are the facts.

Mr. L. THOMPSON: I hope the responsible Minister will not accept this Motion. I want to bring the Committee back to the Amendment and the reason of this Motion. It was due to the fact that there was great confusion of thought by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas). He made definite assertions that in the administration of the Health Insurance Act that certain things operated. The point is this. Is it a fact or is it not that any representation from the Employment Exchange to the Insurance or Approved Societies may not be acted upon by the Approved Societies? The Approved Societies have a perfect right to act as they like. If that is true there is no need to report Progress, and all the talk we have heard in these last 10 minutes is only a confusion of thought. We on this side of the Committee are perfectly wide awake, and I want to say to the hon. Members on the other side that I am as much versed in the administration of the Health Insurance Act and Unemployment Insurance as they are, and I am perfectly clear as to the interpretation of the Act. I hope the Minister will not accept the Motion to report Progress.

Mr. COMPTON: Following on the remarks of the last speaker, I think the
Committee is more confused still. I want, if I may, to support the remarks of the right hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) in so far as the administration of the Health Insurance Act is concerned. The statement of the Minister is quite true up to a point that Approved Societies have the power to define for themselves whether a man is genuinely seeking employment. In the office of my own Approved Society we have in the next room a Trade Union section of our administration, and although our management Committee on the Approved Society have the right to determine whether a man is genuinely seeking employment or not, the snag comes, if I may use the term, when the State auditors associated with the Minister of Health pay their annual visit in order to audit the accounts. We have in connection with our administration, both on the trade union side and on the approved side, a matter of over 200 branches.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. member is now speaking on the merits of the Amendment.

Mr. COMPTON: I am endeavouring to show the reason why the Minister ought to accept the Motion to report Progress. I have said we have about 200 branches and each branch has a Committee which determines not only whether a man is entitled to approved benefit or if unemployed whether he is genuinely seeking work but when the auditors from the Ministry of Health come to the Approved Societies to audit the accounts they ask very definitely what authority we have and what investigation the Approved Society Management Committee made with regard to whether our members were genuinely seeking employment. I say here very definitely and whatever the administration may be, whatever advice the right hon. Gentlemen or Parliamentary Secretary may get from the officials in the box under the Gallery they cannot understand the workings of the State auditors in so far as I have related in regard to the business of the Approved Society. Approved Societies represented by Members on these Benches deal not only with National Health Insurance, but we pay out benefit from our own Society office, and if for no other reason it is manifestly unfair for the Minister to be so definite in his
refusal of this Motion to report Progress while we have scores and scores of cases which may be given with regard to his department dealing out, in my opinion, unjustly to those approved persons and not being prepared to take the word of honour of individuals of the Management Committee of these Approved Societies.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: rose in his place and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 194; Noes, 94.

Division No. 223.]
AYES.
[1.10 a.m.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Fleming, D. P.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Albery, Irving James
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)


Astor, Viscountess
Foxcrott, Captain C. T.
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)


Balniel, Lord
Fraser, Captain Ian
Oakley, T.


Banks, Reginald Mitchell
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William


Barrett, Major Sir Richard
Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Pennefather, Sir John


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Gee, Captain R.
Penny, Frederick George


Beamish, Captain T. P. H.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Perring, William George


Bethell, A.
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Betterton, Henry B.
Goff, Sir Park
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Phillpson, Mabel


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Pielou, D. P.


Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart
Gretton, Colonel John
Price, Major C. W. M.


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Radford, E. A.


Brass, Captain W.
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Raine, W.


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Drecon & Rad.)
Ramsden, E.


Bridgman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Hanbury, C.
Rentaul, G. S.


Briggs, J. Harold
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Rice, Sir Frederick


Briscoe, Richard George
Harland, A.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Brittain, Sir Harry
Hartington, Marquess of
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Rye, F. G.


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Hawke, John Anthony
Salmon, Major I.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Henniker-Hughan, Vice-Adm. Sir A.
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mel. (Renfrew, W.)


Butt, Sir Alfred
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W. R., Sowerby)


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Hilton, Cecil
Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)


Campbell, E. T.
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Shepperson, E. W.


Cassels, J. D.
Holt, Capt. H. P.
Skelton, A. N.


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Cecil. Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Spender Clay, Colonel H.


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Chamberlain. Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Chapman, Sir S.
Hume, Sir G. H.
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Huntingfield, Lord
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Churchman. Sir Arthur C.
Hutchison, G. A. Clark (Midl'n & P'bl's)
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Clayton, G. C.
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Strickland, Sir Gerald


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Jacob. A. E.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Jephcott, A. R.
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Cooper, A. Duff
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Templeton, W. P.


Cope, Major William
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Couper, J. B.
Lamb, J. O.
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Col. George R.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Crookshank. Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Lumley, L. R.
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.
Lynn, Sir R. J.
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Davies, A. V. (Lancaster, Royton)
MacAndrew, Charles Glen
Warrender, Sir Victor


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Macintyre, I.
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


Dawson, Sir Philip
McLean, Major A.
Wells, S. R.


Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Macmillan, Captain H.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Drewe, C.
Malone, Major P. B.
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Eden, Captain Anthony
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Moles, Thomas
Wise, Sir Fredric


Elliot, Captain Walter E.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Womersley, W. J.


Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
Moore, Sir Newton J.
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.).


Everard, w. Lindsay
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Wragg, Herbert


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.



Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Nail, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Fielden, E. B.
Nelson, Sir Frank
Mr. Thompson and Captain


Finburgh, S.
Neville, R. J.
Margesson


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Montague, Frederick


Ammon, Charles George
Groves, T.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, M.)


Barnes, A.
Grundy, T. W.
Murnin, H.


Barr, J.
Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark, N.)
Naylor, T. E.


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Oliver, George Harold


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Hamilton. Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Palin, John Henry


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hardie, George D.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)


Briant, Frank
Hayday, Arthur
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Broad, F. A.
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Potts, John S.


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Hirst, G. H.
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Buchanan, G.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Scrymgeour, E.


Charleton, H. C.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Scurr, John


Clowes, S.
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Cluse, W. S.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Sitch, Charles, H.


Compton, Joseph
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Cove, W. G.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Stamford, T. W.


Crawfurd, H. E.
Kelly, W. T.
Stephen, Campbell


Dalton, Hugh
Kennedy, T.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Kirkwood, D.
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Day, Colonel Harry
Lansbury, George
Thurtle, E.


Dennison, R.
Lawson, John James
Watson. W. M. (Dunfermline)


Dunnico, H.
Lowth, T.
Watts-Morgan. Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwllty)
Lunn, William
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Edwards, John H. (Accrington)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Welsh, J. C.


Fenby, T, D.
Mackinder, W.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
MacLaren, Andrew
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Gibbins, Joseph
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Windsor, Walter


Gillett, George M.
Maxton, James



Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. Hayes and Mr. Warne.

Question put accordingly, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 93; Noes, 193.

Division No. 224.]
AYES.
[1.17 a.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Montague, Frederick


Ammon, Charles George
Groves, T.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)


Barnes, A.
Grundy, T. W.
Murnin, H.


Barr, J.
Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark, N.)
Naylor, T. E.


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Oliver, George Harold


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Palin, John Henry


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hardie, George D.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)


Briant, Frank
Hayday, Arthur
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Broad, F. A.
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Potts, John S.


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Hirst, G. H.
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Buchanan, G.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Scrymgeour, E.


Charleton, H. C.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Scurr, John


Clowes, S.
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Cluse, W. S.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Sitch, Charles, H.


Compton, Joseph
Jones. Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Cove, W. G.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphiily)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Stamford, T. W.


Crawfurd, H. E.
Kelly, W. T.
Stephen, Campbell


Dalton, Hugh
Kennedy, T.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Kirkwood, D.
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Day, Colonel Harry
Lansbury, George
Thurtle, E.


Dennison, R.
Lawson, John James
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Dunnico, H.
Lowth, T.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwelty)
Lunn, William
Welsh. J. C.


Edwards, John H. (Accrington)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Fenby, T. D.
Mackinder, W.
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
MacLaren, Andrew
Windsor, Walter


Gibbins, Joseph
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)



Gillett, George M.
Maxton, James
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)
Mr. Hayes and Mr. Warne


NOES.


Agg-Gardner. Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart


Albery, Irving James
Beamish, Captain T. P. H.
Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.


Astor, Viscountess
Bethell. A.
Brass, Captain W.


Balniel, Lord
Betterton, Henry B.
Brassey, Sir Leonard


Banks. Reginald Mitchell
Bird, E. R (Yorks, W. R. Skinton)
Bridgman, Rt. Hon. William Clive


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Briggs, J. Harold


Briscoe, Richard George
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Perring, William George


Brittain, Sir Harry
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Peto, G (Somerset, Frome)


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Hanbury, C.
Philipson, Mabel


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Pielou, D. P.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C.(Berks, Newb'y)
Harland, A.
Price, Major C. W. M.


Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan
Hartington, Marquess of
Radford, E. A.


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Raine, W


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Ramsden, E.


Butt, Sir Alfred
Hawke, John Anthony
Rentoul, G. S.


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxt'd, Henley)
Rice, Sir Frederick


Campbell, E. T.
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Cassels, J. D.
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Henniker-Hughan, Vice-Adm. Sir A.
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Rye, F. G.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Hilton, Cecil
Salmon, Major I.


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Holt, Capt. H. P.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Chapman, Sir S.
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Charters, Brigadier-General J.
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mel. (Renfrew. W.)


Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W. R., Sowerhy)


Clayton, G. C.
Horlick, Lieut. Colonel J. N.
Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)
Shepperson, E. W.


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Hume, Sir G. H.
Skelton, A. N.


Cockerill, Brigadier-Gene. 'al G. K.
Huntingfield, Lord
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Cooper, A. Duff
Hutchison, G. A. Clark (Midl'n & P'bl's)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Cope, Major William
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Spender Clay, Colonel H.


Couper, J. B.
Jacob, A. E.
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Jephcott, A. R.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)


Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.
Lamb, J. Q.
Strickland, Sir Gerald


Davies, A. V. (Lancaster, Royton)
Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Col. George R.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Dawson, Sir Philip
Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Lumley, L. R.
Templeton, W. p.


Drewe, C.
Lynn, Sir R. J.
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Eden, Captain Anthony
MacAndrew, Charles Glen
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Edmondson, Major A. J.
McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Elliot, Captain Walter E.
Macintyre, l.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
McLean, Major A.
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Everard, W. Lindsay
Macmillan, Captain H.
Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Malone, Major P. B.
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Warrender, Sir Victor


Fielden, E. B.
Moles, Thomas
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Finburgh, S.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


Fleming, D. P.
Moore, Sir Newton J.
Wells, S. R.


Ferestler-Walker, Sir L.
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Fraser, Captain lan
Nail, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph
Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Nelson, Sir Frank
Wise, Sir Fredric


Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Neville, R. J.
Womersley, w. J.


Gee, Captain R.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exster)
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.).


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Wragg, Herbert


Glyn, Major R. G. C.
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)



Goff, Sir Park
Oakley, T.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Greene, W. P. Crawford
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Mr. Frederick Thomson and Captain Margesson.


Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Ponnefather, Sir John



Cretton, Colonel John
Penny, Frederick George

Question again proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

Mr. MacDONALD: Before we dismiss this Amendment, I think we ought to know exactly where we stand now regarding its meaning and significance. First of all, there is no doubt at all about the persons who have got to pay contributions. There is no chance of anybody avoiding that. The Government have come to a decision and an insured woman is not quite sure whether she is going to get her insurance or not. Supposing that we take it that the Government are right in their explanation, and I am certain they believe they are right.
We will assume they are right. Society "A" may administer with laxity and "B" with hard definite business-like precision. Now whether a certain number of these compulsorily-insured persons get the benefits of the insurance scheme or not depends upon whether the societies to which their husbands belong are administered with large-hearted generosity or narrow and flinty-hearted business conceptions. Nothing could be more unsatisfactory than that. Surely one of the essential conditions in a scheme, which we will call, provisionally, an insurance scheme, is that there should be uniformity of administra-
tion. I know that when you come down to individual cases in the most uniform scheme the men who have to decide whether one should be taken and another left are variable as human minds must be. The Ministry are quite open in saying that the fate of these women is going to be determined, through the status of their husbands, by scores and scores of separate unorganised and independently worked insurance systems. That being the position, as now revealed by this scheme, it is much more crude than some of us thought at first, and I hope my friends will insist most rigidly on carrying the question to a Division and make it known to the people outside why we are doing so.

Major CRAWFURD: I should like to say a few words on this Amendment, on which already some Members have spoken three or four times and some right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench more than three times. I have not hitherto taken any part, and I do now simply suggest that the Minister of Health should do now what he ought to have done hours ago—and that is to accept the Amendment. I do not know how long the discussion threatens to go on, but I do know that there is great hostility to this Measure on the Benches above the Gangway, and I am sure that that hostility would be greatly mitigated if the Government would abandon their habit of rejecting all suggestions from this side and accept one or two Amendments which are to be moved in order to make the Measure a little more humane. There is the case, mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, of people who fall out of employment, but there is also the large class of women who marry men who can never under any circumstances get employment at all. When the Minister in a rather airy way says that this class is so small that it does not matter, I would remind him that there is the whole teaching profession, who, I understand, will not come into this Bill at all. We have had appeals from all parties in the House, and I think the Government would do much to mitigate opposition if they would accept certain Amendments that are put forward—and I can imagine no Amendment more worthy of acceptance than the present one.

Mr. BECKETT: I would like to ask the Minister of Health most sincerely to seriously consider this Amendment. He has said in one of his replies that the number affected is very small. It will be a great pity for political life in this country and for all Parties if it went out that because the number affected by any legislation is small that their case is not to be considered by a Government with the great majority possessed by the present Government. The Minister of Health has many things to think of, and it cannot be expected that he can have the time to consider many of the ways in which his colleague, the Minister of Labour, is endeavouring to rob the poor unemployed in this country. As the Minister of Labour is not present and as no one else appears to know anything of the matter, as it is inconvenient for us to talk and for hon. Members opposite to listen, and as we shall have to wait for our morning papers to bring information of the Bill on which Fleet Street is now working, I beg the Minister to accept the Amendment and allow us to get to something on which cither he or the Under-Secretary is able to give the Committee some definite information.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I want to bring before the Committee a point which has not so far been considered. I want to raise the question of the deposit contributor who is not in an approved society. Who is to judge his case? The approved society settles the position of a man who is on their books. He is a man generally of fixed habits. But the deposit contributor is a man who is here to-day and gone to-morrow, and consequently he is affected more than any other class. It is important that the position of this class should be dealt with.

Mr. THURTLE: I will not detain the Committee for any length of time, as there are many more of my colleagues who wish to take part in the discussion. This is a most important Amendment, and we wish to examine it in full in all its aspects, and, to use the language of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to deploy all our armaments. First I will take up the point made by the Attorney-General in regard to the definition of an insured person. He said that the way in which we could resolve our doubts as to whether the
widow of a certain type of man would be eligible for benefit or not was by considering the definition of an insured person. It would relieve our minds if the Attorney-General would undertake at this stage to widen that definition in such a way as to make it quite clear that the possibility envisaged from this side of the House would not arise. It has already been explained very clearly by those who have great experience of approved societies that the approved societies have no effective machinery for determining whether or not a man is genuinely seeking work, and in the lack of that machinery they have to resort to the rota committees of the employment committees to find out the information. It is very natural that they should not have the necessary machinery for determining a point of that sort, because it has been the experience of this House that even the Ministry of Labour, with its most elaborate system of committees and Employment Exchanges all over the country and its great army of officials, is not able to establish in a satisfactory manner whether or not a given person is genuinely seeking employment. Week after week we have cases raised in this House where there is very grave doubt indeed as to whether a just verdict has been given in a case of that sort, and when there is so much genuine doubt on an issue of this sort I do suggest that the least the Attorney-General could do would be at this stage of the Debate to give a guarantee that later on he would so widen the definition of an insured person as to remedy any possibility of an injustice of this sort taking place.
I did not rise in the main to make that point. I rise to deal with the way in which this Amendment will affect a very worthy class of British citizens, and it so happens to be a class in which I am particularly interested because a large number of them reside in my constituency. I refer to the costers of London. I think it will not be denied that the costers of London are a very worthy class of citizens, and if I were to attempt to make any subtle distinctions between costers I would say that the costers of Hoxton are the very best costers in London. Having said that the costers are a very worthy set of citizens, I must not be understood to suggest that the wives of these costers are any less worthy
citizens, and it is for the benefit of the wives of these costers that I wish to put this point forward. I think it is an accepted fact that, under the Bill as it is framed at present, the costers cannot benefit. They do not come within the Attorney-General's definition of insurable persons. As this is a Widow's and Orphans' Pension Bill, as it is not described as a Bill to provide pensions for some widows and some orphans, but is really intended by its Title to cover all widows and all orphans, I want to submit very respectfully a claim on behalf of the potential widows and orphans of the costers. I hope this Amendment will be accepted in order that these persons, among many other worthy and deserving persons, may participate in the benefits of this Bill.

Mr. THOMAS: I am quite sure that Members on the Government side of the Committee must be at least disturbed in their minds. I am quite sure they all feel they want to do the right thing, and when they sit there and listen to arguments and new points and pregnant criticism from these benches and find their own Front Bench speakers—I can quite understand the back benches being speechless, because they are waiting for a lead and are all saying to themselves, "What possible answer can the Minister give?" No answer is forthcoming. I refuse at this stage to elaborate that important point just raised about costers, but on the other side of the Committee they must have been disturbed in listening to it.

Mr. L. THOMPSON: We are wide awake.

Mr. THOMAS: I am quite sure my hon. Friend wants to make us aware of it, because he, is continually advertising it. He must have it in his mind that there is some doubt about it on this side. But I do ask him—wide awake as he is, and the only vocal exponent on that side, the only member of the band that we can hear—I ask him whether it would not be fair, in the interests of decent legislation, to himself get up and make some contribution as to the justification of the monstrous injustice to the costers. If he remains silent, there is only one interpretation. Either he knows nothing of the costers' case, or he is not so wide awake as he alleges. I am prepared to give way
to him, but if he remains silent I ask his constituents to judge.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The Committee proceeded to a Division.

Mr. LANSBURY: (seated and covered): On a point of Order, Captain FitzRoy. I want to ask if you will kindly tell the Committee whether the right hon. Member who moved the Closure—we were all watching the front benches, and we saw no right hon. Gentleman rise—I want to ask whether a Member can move a Motion seated in his place; must he not rise to address the Chair?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: An hon. Member cannot move the Closure seated The Closure was moved by the right hon. Gentleman standing, and is quite in order.

Mr. LANSBURY: (seated and covered): My point of Order, Captain FitzRoy, is this: We who were watching the opposite benches are unable to distinguish who it was who moved the Closure, and I ask you very respectfully to tell the Committee what hon. or right hon. Gentleman moved the Closure, and did he rise in his place?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: It was moved by the Minister of Health.

Mr. LANSBURY: I beg to inform you, Captain FitzRoy, that he did not rise in his place to move the Closure.

The Committee divided: Ayes, 184; Noes, 85.

Division No. 225.]
AYES.
[1.50 p.m.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Drewe, C.
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement


Albery, Irving James
Eden, Captain Anthony
Lamb, J. Q.


Astor, Viscountess
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Col. George R.


Balniel, Lord
Edwards, John H. (Accrington)
Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman


Banks, Reginald Mitchell
Elliot, Captain Walter E.
Lumley, L. R.


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
Lynn, Sir R. J.


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Everard, W. Lindsay
MacAndrew, Charles Glen


Beamish, Captain T. P. H.
Fairfax, Captain J. G.
McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus


Betterton, Henry B.
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Macintyre, I.


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Fielden, E. B.
McLean, Major A.


Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart
Finburgh, S.
Macmillan, Captain H.


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Fleming, D. P.
Malone, Major P. B.


Brass, Captain W.
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Margesson, Captain D.


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Fraser, Captain Ian
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Moles, Thomas


Briggs, J. Harold
Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.


Briscoe, Richard George
Gee, Captain R.
Moore, Sir Newton J.


Brittain, Sir Harry
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Goff, Sir Park
Nail, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph


Droun-Lindsay, Major H.
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Nelson, Sir Frank


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Neville, R. J.


Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Hanbury, C.
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)


Butt, Sir Alfred
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Oakley, T.


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Harland, A.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William


Campbell, E. T.
Hartington, Marquess of
Pennefather, Sir John


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Penny, Frederick George


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Perring, William George


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Hawke, John Anthony
Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Chamberlain. Rt. Hon. N (Ladywood)
Henderson, Capt. R.R.(Oxf'd, Henley)
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Chapman, Sir S.
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)
Pielou, D. P.


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Price, Major C. W. M.


Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Henniker-Hughan, Vice-Adm. Sir A.
Radford, E. A.


Clayton, G. C.
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Raine, W.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hilton. Cecil
Ramsden, E.


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Rentoul, G. S.


Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K
Holt. Capt. H. P.
Rice. Sir Frederick


Cooper, A. Duff
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Cope, Major William
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)


Couper, J. B.
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Rye, F. G.


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)
Salmon, Major I.


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Hume, Sir G. H.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbre)
Huntingfield, Lord
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.
Hutchison, G. A. Clark (Midl'n & P'bl's)
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Davies, A. V. (Lancaster. Royton)
Jacob, A. E.
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mel. (Renfrew, W.)


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Jephcott, A. R.
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W. R., Sowerby)


Dawson, Sir Philip
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)


Dean, Arthur Wellesley
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Shepperson, E. W.


Skeiton, A. N.
Templeton, W. P.
Wells, S. R.


Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquny)


Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Spender Clay, Colonel H.
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Sprat, Sir Alexander
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)


Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden. E.)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Wise, Sir Fredric


Steel, Major Samuel Strang
Wallace, Captain D. E.
Womersley, W. J.


Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)


Strickland, Sir Gerald
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.
Wragg, Herbert


Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Warrender, Sir Victor



Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Sugden, Sir Wilfrid
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)
Lord Stanley and Captain Viscount Curzon.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife. West)
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Groves, T.
Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred


Amman, Charles George
Grundy, T. W.
Montague, Frederick


Barnes, A.
Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark, N.)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)


Barr, J.
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Murnin, H.


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Naylor, T. E.


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Hardie, George D.
Oliver, George Harold


Broad, F. A.
Hayday, Arthur
Palin, John Henry


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)


Buchanan, G.
Hirst, G. H.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Charleton, H. C.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Potts, John S.


Clowes, S.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Scrymgeour, E.


Cluse, W. S.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Scurr, John


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Compton, Joseph
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Cove, W. G.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Sitch, Charles, H.


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Crawfurd, H. E.
Kelly, W. T.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Dalton, Hugh
Kennedy, T.
Stamford, T. W.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Kirkwood, D.
Stephen, Campbell


Day, Colonel Harry
Lansbury, George
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Dennison, R.
Lawson, John James
Thurtle, E.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Lowth, T.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Fenby, T. D.
Lunn, William
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Welsh, J. C.


Gibbins, Joseph
Mackinder, W.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Gillett, George M.
MacLaren, Andrew
Windsor, Walter


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)



Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Coins)
Maxton, James
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. Warne and Mr. Hayes.

2.0 A.M.

Mr. LANSBURY: Is this the opportunity of raising a point of Order on your action, Sir, just now. I do so because I wished just before you put the Question to raise a question which I thought was rather important as a point of Order. I deliberately watched the right hon. Gentleman and I noticed that, immediately preceding my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas), that he had half risen to move the Closure, but seeing that it was a front bencher he retained his seat. I kept my eyes on him in order that I might catch your eye first before he rose, but he just nodded his head. The hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite are behind or on the side of the right hon. Gentleman. We are all sitting facing him and we are all quite unanimous that the right hon. Gentleman did not rise. I am not concerned to press this any further than to say that I think it is rather a bad thing that a Chairman should take a nod from a Minister. My point of Order is that we on this side
watched the right hon. Gentleman and neither saw him rise nor heard him say a single word that was audible to anybody. Therefore we think you should not have taken the Motion without our point of Order.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I can assure the hon. Member who raised this point of Order that if he has any complaint to make against the Chair—

Mr. N. MACLEAN: I am putting down a Motion.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: There is a proper manner in which to do it which he must take. As regards the incident to which he refers, he probably will not take my word against his own, but I saw the right hon. Gentleman rise in his place and make the Motion.

Mr. N. MACLEAN: We did not hear it.

Question put accordingly, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 87; Noes, 178.

Division No. 226.]
AYES.
[2.1 a.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Montague, Frederick


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Groves, T.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)


Ammon, Charles George
Grundy, T. W.
Murnin, H.


Barnes, A.
Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark, N.)
Naylor, T. E.


Barr, J.
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Oliver, George Harold


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Hardie, George D.
Palin, John Henry


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Hayday, Arthur
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)


Broad, F. A.
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Hirst, G. H.
Potts, John S.


Buchanan, G.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Scrymgeour, E.


Charleton, H. C.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Scurr, John


Clowes, S.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Cluse, W. S.
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Sitch, Charles H.


Compton, Joseph
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Cove, W. G.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Kelly, W. T.
Stamford, T. W.


Crawfurd, H. E.
Kennedy, T.
Stephen, Campbell


Dalton, Hugh
Kirkwood, D.
Templeton, W. P.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lansbury, George
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Day, Colonel Harry
Lawson, John James
Thurtle, E.


Dennison, R.
Lowth, T.
Warne, G. H.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Lunn, William
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Edwards, John H. (Accrington)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Fenby, T. D.
Mackinder, W.
Welsh, J. C.


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
MacLaren, Andrew
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Gibbins, Joseph
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Windsor, Walter


Gillett, George M.
Maxton, James



Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred
Mr. Hayes and Miss Wilkinson.




NOES.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Dawson, Sir Philip
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)


Albery, Irving James
Dean, Arthur Wellesley
King, Captain Henry Douglas


Astor, Viscountess
Drewe, C.
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement


Balniel, Lord
Eden, Captain Anthony
Lamb, J. Q.


Banks, Reginald Mitchell
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Lane-Fox, Colonel George R.


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Elliot, Captain Walter E.
Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
Lumley, L. R.


Beamish, Captain T. P. H.
Everard, W. Lindsay
Lynn, Sir R. J.


Bethell, A.
Fairfax, Captain J. G.
MacAndrew, Charles Glen


Betterton, Henry B.
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Fielden, E. B.
Macintyre, I.


Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart
Finburgh, S.
McLean, Major A.


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Fleming, D. P.
Macmillan, Captain H.


Brass, Captain W.
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Malone, Major P. B.


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Fraser, Captain Ian
Margesson, Captain D.


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)


Briggs, J. Harold
Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Molts, Thomas


Briscoe, Richard George
Gee, Captain R.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.


Brittain, Sir Harry
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Moore, Sir Newton J.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Goff, Sir Park
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Nail, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Nelson, Sir Frank


Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan
Hail, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Neville, R. J.


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Hanbury, C.
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)


Butt, Sir Alfred
Hannon. Patrick Joseph Henry
Oakley, T.


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Harland, A.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William


Campbell, E. T.
Hartington, Marquess of
Pennefather, Sir John


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Penny, Frederick George


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Perring, William George


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Hawke, John Anthony
Peto, Basll E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Chapman, Sir S.
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)
Pielou, D. p.


Charteris, Brigadler-General J.
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Price, Major C. W. M.


Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Henniker-Hughan, Vice-Adm. Sir A.
Radford, E. A.


Clayton, G. C.
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Raine, W.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hilton, Cecil
Ramsden, E.


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Rentoul, G. S.


Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Holt, Capt. H. P.
Rice, Sir Frederick


Cooper, A. Duff
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Cope, Major William
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)


Couper, J. B.
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Rye, F. G.


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)
Salmon, Major I.


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Hume, Sir G. H.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Huntingfield, Lord
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.
Hutchison, G. A. Clark (Midl'n & P'bl's)
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Davies, A. V. (Lancaster, Royton)
Jacob, A. E.
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew. W.)


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Jephcott. A. B.
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W. R., Sowerby)




Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Shepperson, E. W.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-
Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)


Spender Clay, Colonel H.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Wise, Sir Fredric


Sprot, Sir Alexander
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Womersley, W. J.


Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)
Wallace, Captain D. E.
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)


Steel, Major Samuel Strang
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)
Wragg, Herbert


Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.



Strickland, Sir Gerald
Warrender, Sir Victor
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Lord Stanley and Captain Viscount


Stuart, Crichton, Lord C.
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)
curzon.


Sugden, Sir Wilfrid
Wells, S. R.

Mr. LANSBURY: May I make a personal explanation? Two or three of my friends on the Front Bench tell me that I am mistaken. I can only say that I thought my eyes never left the right hon. Gentleman for more than a few seconds, but I am quite willing to accept the evidence of the other Members, and if you will allow me I will withdraw anything I said.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I accept fully the hon. Gentleman's statement.
With reference to the Amendment of the right hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden), in page 1, line 12, after the word "man," to insert the words "who is under forty years of age and without children," and also to the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy), in page 1, line 12, after the word "man," to insert the words
(a) has a dependant child or children; or (b) has attained, at the time of her husband's death the age of fifty years.
These two Amendments suggest alternative schemes to the Bill. I suggest, for the convenience of the Committee, that in discussing the Amendment of the right hon. Member for Colne Valley, the discussion should be on the whole scheme which he suggests. There are several Amendments down in his name and we cannot have a full discussion on the other Amendments as well as this one, and when this one is disposed of it will have considerable effect on subsequent Amendments.

Mr. MacDONALD: I quite agree with your suggestion. There is a series of consequential Amendments and when we settle the first one we assume that the whole of the matter is settled, so that if the Debate ranges over the whole idea we would be satisfied.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I wish to make quite certain of the meaning of the
arrangement. I take it that we discuss the series of consequential Amendments in the name of the right hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden).

Mr. MacDONALD: That is so.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I was referring to the Amendment in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley and the consequential Amendments to this Amendment. The same ruling would apply with reference to the Amendments of the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull, as an alternative scheme to this one.

Mr. CLUSE: I beg to move, in page 1, line 12, after the word "man," to insert the words
who is under forty years of age and without children.
That also applies to the Amendment referring to the increase in the rate of pension to 20s. per week and also to the Amendment to Clause 1, page 1, line 13, after "week," to insert the words,
and to a widow of an insured man who is over forty years of age or with children a pension at the rate of twenty-six shillings and eightpence per week.
The object of these Amendments is to increase the amount of pension for a widow from 10s. to 20s. It is only to secure to a widow the same pension which the widow of a private in the Army obtains as the result of the death of her husband. We always take up the attitude on this side of the House that industrial casualties are as painful in their effects as are casualties in the field of war. A woman may become a widow owing to an accident to her husband caused by the dangerous conditions in the mines, or in the ordinary factory, or even as a result of the speed mania we suffer from in our state of society. We urge that 10s. per week is entirely inadequate, and that the least a woman is entitled to in that position is a pension of 20s. per week.

Mr. DALTON: Since the Minister does not deign to rise to make any statement as to the intentions of the Government, I shall adduce one or two further considerations in favour of the scale in this and subsequent Amendments. Ten shillings a week is very inadequate for widows and 5s. for children. I plead for a higher scale, and I would point out to the Minister that if these very low rates at present embodied in the Bill are not raised, a heavy burden will still rest upon the local rates throughout the country. If he desires to give some relief, it is essential a higher allowance should be given. These Amendments do not put these widows into so good a position as war widows. They fall a little short for the reason, in part, that this is a contributory scheme. It is very desirable that the payments of benefits should be on the same scale under this Bill as those which are at present embodied in the war pensions scale. I submit to the Minister that there has been great disquiet amongst ex-service men and their dependants about the possibility of the pensions scale being reduced. If we fix these two scales on practically the same level that will make it more difficult for the Minister of Pensions subsequently to reduce the war pensions scale.
We are threatened, and letters have come into the possession of certain of my own friends, which suggest there is a deliberate intention by the Ministry of Pensions to reduce the war pensions rate by at least 10 per cent. in the not far distant future. It is very important to shore up the position of the ex-service men and their dependants by giving this additional support to the present war pensions scale. Although it is within the bounds of possibility that if these low rates of pensions proposed in the Bill are established that the War Pensions Minister may possibly reduce war pensions to the miserably low level proposed in this Bill. I feel that if we were to establish two schemes identically the same it would strengthen the hands of those who are pressing the Pensions Minister not to permit any reductions in the present scale. That is a line of argument that we are entitled to take. I hope the Minister will not fall back on a barren negation and say that this will upset the actuarial
basis of the scheme. If that line is taken it is possible to resist all our Amendments and stifle Debate by moving the Closure, as has just been done. It is always possible, when a disconcerting argument is brought forward, for the Government to move the Closure in order that the point may not be pursued and developed. We had a case just now— and no reply was made from the Front Bench.
I hope the Government will consider this Amendment in a reasonable spirit, and from the three points of view I have endeavoured to emphasise—namely, to give some genuine relief to the rates and remove a number of women and children from the sphere of Poor Law relief; to establish the principle that these widows and children are equally entitled to reasonable maintenance as the widows and children of war pensioners; and make it less likely that there will be identical scales so that the iniquity of a further reduction in war pensions shall not be perpetrated in the future.

Sir A. MOND: I understand that at this stage it will be convenient to discuss an Amendment down in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) and myself proposing an increase in the scale from 10s. to 15s.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I understood you, Mr. Deputy-Chairman, to say that we were not to discuss a series of Amendments on this particular Amendment.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I understood that the Amendment in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) and other hon. Members was an entirely different scheme and I suggested that we should have one discussion on this scheme and another discussion on the other Amendment.

Sir A. MOND: I entirely bow to your ruling.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The Amendment that has been moved will, as has been said, profoundly alter the scheme the Government have put forward. The reason given by the Seconder of the Amendment is one which I venture to hope will not be repeated. He informed the Committee that the reason why the Government should accept the
scheme was because it would bolster up the efforts of those who were seeking to prevent the Ministry of Pensions reducing war pensions by 10 per cent. And he was good enough to say that he and his friends had inside information which led them to believe that this was contemplated. He and his friends always seem to have that information when there is a bye-election going on. The last time this absolutely untrue statement was made was in the "Daily Herald" on 15th June, and the statement then was this:
The reason Major Tryon did not reply was because the Conservative Government intend to reduce the war pensions by 10 per cent. next year.
Then the question was asked by the "Daily Herald":
What will the electors say to that?
We know now what the electors said. I suppose this statement is repeated now for the benefit of the electors in the Forest of Dean. I can assure those whom the hon. Member and his friends are seeking to disquiet into voting for a cause which they otherwise would not support—it was no use assuring the hon. Member himself—that the statement which was made in the "Daily Herald," and which he has repeated in the House to-night, is one for which there never has been the slightest foundation.

Mr. DALTON: rose—

HON. MEMBERS: Withdraw!

Mr. DALTON: This tumult does not facilitate the observations I am able to address to the Committee. I rise simply to say that this somewhat bitter personal and political attack by the Attorney-General is no answer to the point I raised, which was that certain of us are disquieted because we cannot get any definite assurance from the Government on the point. I asked for a definite assurance from the Minister of Pensions that the pension scale would not be reduced, and the Minister was not able to give that assurance. Therefore we are a little disquieted. It is easy for the Attorney-General to point to these bye-elections, but they have nothing whatever to do with the case I put forward. I did not introduce this element of personal bitterness or offensive observations. It has been left to a Minister of the Crown
to embitter the discussion and try to draw the Committee off on a false scent.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I pass away from the hon. Member because sometimes, when an hon. Member is told that there is no foundation for what he has said, he is anxious to withdraw the statement. As the hon. Member has not withdrawn it after having heard that it is wholly unfounded, I have no further observations to make. I turn from the hon. Member and I come to the merits of the Amendment. There is here, of course, an opportunity for anyone who desires to court cheap popularity to vote for an enormous extension of the benefits proposed in the Bill, and it will be of course easy for those who are genuinely anxious that something practical should be clone for the widows and orphans to vote against them. Then, of course, it will be said that they voted against 20s. for these widows and orphans—an electoral device, about on the same plane as the one we have just listened to. If the Committee seriously desired to consider the Amendment it would probably want to know the difference in cost it would involve. The figures have been got out. I would like to explain to the Committee the basis taken. If I am wrong in the basis the Mover of the Amendment will be able to explain. The Amendment proposes differing rates according to whether the widow was under or over 40 at the death of her husband. Those preparing the figures have assumed that, in the case where the widow was under 40 at the death of her husband, when she reached 40 she would come to the same rate as her sister whose husband lived until she reached 40. The two rates are 20s. and 26s. 8d. The 20s. widow under 40 would get 26s. 8d. when she became over 40 years of age. That is the basis on which we have worked these figures. On the other hand, we have not made any allowance for the fact that the Old Age Pension is only 10s. a week, and that it would be, to say the least, difficult to give a widow 26s. 8d. until she became 65 and then cut her down to 10s. Assuming you were to do that, even on that assumption, the cost, I am informed, in the current financial year, 1925–26, would be £2,200,000, in the year 1926–27 it would be £10,600,000, in 1935–36 it would have reached £26,000,000, and by 1960 it would have reached £53,900,000.
When I have given these figures, I have really given a conclusive answer. It is quite impossible to propose such additions to the cost of the scheme, and it would be an effective way of destroying the scheme to overload it in the way suggested. I notice the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) is one of those whose names are put down to this Amendment. It would have been a matter of considerable interest to the Committee, if he had been here, to learn from him whether that contributory scheme which, as we now know, was being worked out by the Socialist Government last November, when they got this elaborate actuarial calculation, whether that scheme provided for the 10s. which we are offering or some different figure such as is now suggested. I venture to suggest that it would be quite impossible to make any such modification as the mover and seconder of the Amendment desire, and on that ground the Government are unable to accept it.

Sir HENRY SLESSER: I am sorry that the Attorney-General should have accused us, in moving this Amendment, of trying to court cheap popularity. I think it is an unfair statement to make, and I hope to show the Committee, when the figures are actually considered, that so far from their being ridiculous, and I think he said enormous, proposals, they really are only proposals for a reasonable amount, and certainly nothing less than any widow could support herself decently upon. The proposal, as I understand it, is that in cases where the widow is over 40 years of age the sum shall be 26s. 8d. per week instead of 10s. per week. Now 10s., at the present rate of the cost of living, is worth, I suppose, about 6s. in pre-war money, and it cannot fairly be said to be a proposal to court cheap popularity to say that 26s. 8d. at the present rate of the cost of living is not an unreasonable amount to ask that a woman should be provided with when her husband has died and it is desired that she should be kept from the necessity of going into the labour market. When we come to children we find that there again the figures are not at all unreasonable. For 5s., 10s. is substituted, which again is worth no more than about 6s. at pre-war rates, and I think there are few members of this Committee who would care to be responsible
for the maintenance of children and only receive 5s. for the eldest child and 3s. a week for every other child.
Leaving aside what I must call the unnecessary bitterness and somewhat feeble political attacks of the Attorney-General, and coming to the realities of the Amendment, I understood that the purpose of the Government in proposing this Bill was to keep these widows so that they could stay at home and look after the children and not have to go to work when they ought to be performing useful social service at home. Therefore, before we come to any actuarial question at all, we are entitled to ask at the outset if the amount which it is proposed to give to these widows is sufficient to keep them off the labour market or not. Tested by that standard, so far from this being ridiculous, it is perfectly obvious that the sum which the Government propose to give in return for these weekly confiscations in contributions or whatever you wish to call them, is utterly useless and quite insufficient to keep any woman off the labour market. It may or may not enable certain Guardians of the Poor to refuse to perform their obligations under the Poor Law, but it will be absolutely useless to perform the service which the Labour Party always contended ought to be done, and that is to give the widows a sufficient standard of life to keep them off the labour market.
If the only dispute between us is whether this should be a contributory or a non-contributory scheme, I would point out that the party of which I am a member always maintained that, however the money be raised, the amount should be sufficient to enable a widow to live at home and look after her children. Therefore it is being very unfair to suggest that this Amendment is being put up in order to court cheap popularity in the country. If we had been proposing a scheme, whether it had been contributory or not, it would have been a scheme, as every publication of the Labour party will show, to give enough money to the woman to enable her to remain at home, and I protest against the suggestion that we should start this business with this mysterious phrase about actuarial possibilities and actuarial allowances. Surely if we are to do anything for widows' pensions, we should begin by inquiring what is the least amount that will
be of any use. If we cannot afford to give sufficient to enable the woman to remain at home, we had better postpone the scheme and wait until we have more money. What is the necessity for this Bill at all? I do not know.
If my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General talks about popularity, it may be that this Bill was introduced under the misguided idea that the Government were to get cheap popularity. Whether they will get popularity or not, I do not know; but I am quite sure it is very cheap indeed. The returns are cheap, and the only thing that is dear is the contribution. The purpose of this Amendment is an adequate scheme. That being so, I submit that the Government should have started with the necessity. Instead of being dominated by actuaries, they should have started from the basis of what was wanted and looked about to find how the money should be obtained. What is the use of going on with this scheme at all if we cannot at the present moment in the present state of industry produce a scheme which is going to do the things which the Government wish to do? It will merely subsidise low wages and merely assist the Poor Law authorities. But I do not for one moment subscribe to the idea that this thing could not properly be done If it is necessary to supplement the actuarial calculations by a State grant the charge on the Treasury could be increased to that extent. If it is necessary to maintain the contributory principle, they might have added to that a sufficient State allowance so that together you could give people an adequate amount.
I do ask that Members of the Government will not talk about Army Pensions, about Socialists, By-Elections or any of these irrevelant matters but tell the House whether they think this scheme will allow the woman to remain at home on 10s. a week. The Government can supplement their actuarial account by a State subsidy, sufficient to cover the difference. If they cannot afford to do that the Government had much better abandon the scheme altogether and wait until we have money enough to do the thing properly. It is as though we were going into war with a ship half built and the other half to be built. It must be admitted that a widow cannot live on 10s. a week. If it cannot be done we
were entitled to ask that the scheme should start on the assumption that we wish to produce something, whereby the purpose of this legislation should really be carried out. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has already said, and it is perfectly true, that this is not an insurance scheme in any real sense of the word. It is in fact a peculiar piece of legislation of its own. It is a legislation prodigal. There has never been anything like it before, and for all we know there may be nothing like it again. To talk about this as a sort of commercial insurance affair is really confusion of thought. It is a splendid scheme designed, as I understand it, to help these widows in their emergency, but it fails at the outset in that it does not produce the very thing which is required. Therefore we cast about and we think that the figures which we put down are the very least on which the purposes of such legislation can be effected, and if the Government's plans are not sufficient let them take the scheme back and reconsider their proposals and let us start with the assumption that widows' pensions should be a pension and not a miserable pittance.

Mr. GILLETT: I should like to congratulate the Attorney-General on his speech, because it seems to me that at this hour of the night when the physical vitality is usually at its lowest, it calls more for congratulation than otherwise when such heat was engendered. As to the reference to Oldham I did not know there was a Government candidate. The Attorney-General seems to have looked upon the victory of the Liberal party as in some way representing a success for the Government. Turning now to the Amendment and coming back from the point where the Attorney-General had side-tracked so many of us, I cannot imagine why the Attorney-General was surprised at this Amendment being put down, because if he had been at all acquainted with any of the agitations that had gone on in past years for mothers' pensions he would have known perfectly well that one of the chief points of the supporters of widows' pensions was that they were anxious to secure that the mothers should not go out to work. I always understood that one of the fundamental planks of the scheme was that there should be enough money provided so that
the widow would not have to go to work. If we take the Government's scale as compared with the scale for the absolute necessities of life that must be supplied it will be found, as I have no doubt the Minister will acknowledge, that the money suggested here does not come up to the necessary figure to meet even the bare necessities of life. Then the Attorney-General, in order to frighten us away from going on with this scheme, has mentioned larger sums of money.
But there is one thing the Attorney-General has not mentioned in connection with this money. The Attorney-General has given the impression that if all this money were spent it would be an additional charge upon the State. But I should like to put it to the Committee that these widows and children are not going to be left unprovided for and the Attorney-General is ignoring the amount of money that would be spent by the Poor Law Authorities and no notice is taken in his figure for the allowances made for the large sums they would be saved if the Government were to take over the responsibility in connection with widows and orphans. That brings me to the third point I want to press upon the Government. I believe we want to aim at dealing with this so as to lift certain of the problems of poverty right out of the hands of the Poor Law altogether. That is one of the reasons why I strongly supported those in the past who urged that when any scheme was brought in to provide pensions for widows and orphans it should be large enough so that there could be no reason whatever for going to the Poor Law Guardians to ask for further assistance. It is a very great disappointment to many of us that the Government scheme has only landed us half-way and these problems which we hoped to see solved when widows' pensions became a reality are only part met and that you will leave many of them to a certain extent in the hands of the Poor Law and you leave others of the mothers to go out to work. For these reasons I must cordially support the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend.

Mr. HARDIE: In dealing with this subject I am going to try to confine myself, if possible, to what will be the result
of this Measure if carried through. I have had a long experience on a public body and have dealt once a week while on that body with claims of widows. I claim to know something of the inside working of that class of poverty because, do not forget this, that every effort of this Government like that of other Governments is simply an effort towards trying to make poverty more acceptable. The widowed woman under this scheme might be the widow of a fisherman who is not insured at all or the widow of a crofter who is not insured at all and what I see is that in dealing with these classes they become another method of subsidising wages. You find that where you get a widow with a pension there are always those who wish to give employment on the basis that the pension is being calculated. I had no less than 200 cases under my care and notice when doing this work in Scotland. Women supposed to receive a pension ranging from 5s. to 10s. were placed in touch with someone who was going to give them a job but that pension was always calculated in some way or another. I see a great danger in this form of inefficient and insufficient insurance. If we are to put into our hearts what is on the lips of the hypocrites when they talk of the "motherhood of the nation" when we put these catch-gags into reality we ought to see that the mother left with children is going to have that sufficiency which will keep her in charge and an influence in the home.
It is quite easy to see that we have cases of men who served in the War and whose widows come under this Clause. You can imagine, if these men could return to see how the widows and children were being treated, what they would think. You might have deluged them with words and given them a barrowful of medals, but they would be more happy in their spiritual home in the realisation that something was being done for their offspring. But here in this Bill, while we have speeches made in relation to what is going to be done for the widows, while we have flowery speeches and words to convey something which is not there, when we come down to the cash measurement we find the real heart of the Tory party. It always looks upon those who are poor as being something inferior to what they are. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Their whole attitude is that: that they look upon those
in poverty as being made by somebody inferior to God Almighty. The whole atmosphere of the Bill shows the spirit that they look upon those who belong to our class, and who are mostly associated with poverty, as something less than themselves. My protest is that there is no one on this side of the House who is in any way inferior to those opposite. We are the equal of those opposite.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALL: Nobody said a word.

Mr. HARDIE: With that little diversion I am going back to the subject, but you will notice it was not I who left it. Now the voice of Kenya is to be heard once more. You know that you all try to ape the superior as a party against our party.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not see what party superiority has to do with the Amendment.

Mr. HARDIE: When someone of their class is to get a pension, is it one of 10s. a week that is considered? You get them £20,000 a year. I do not want to repeat what has been said to-day by the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury), but he gave you a list of the pensions. I think it is absolutely relevant. You can get people pensions up to 520,000 a year, but you do not discuss them in detail.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: These people are not widows of insured persons.

Mr. HARDIE: Exactly. They did not even require to pay the insurance to get it, and that is my point. They get large sums handed to them without contributing anything. I hope the Government will see its way to look upon this from a human point of view, and forget for a moment or two the tittle-tattle about the actuarial returns, because when you begin the machine-made method of dealing with human affairs you are spiritually lost.

3.0 A.M.

Mr. DUNCAN GRAHAM: I expected the Attorney-General would have given us some reason why the Government was unwilling to accept the Amendment. Instead of answering the questions put to him he made a political tirade. He said the Socialist Government had some
sort of scheme in their mind a year ago. He says he knows about it or knows sufficient to think that by mentioning it to frighten Members on this side of the Committee. If the Socialist Government had introduced a Measure of this kind they would have found Opposition on this side of the Committee. Curiously enough, the well-fed, highly intelligent, practical men of the Tory party, the Capitalist party— [Interruption.] The Attorney-General might at least have given some evidence of his superior knowledge of the conditions under which the working man's wife has got to live. If anyone can get up on the other side of the Committee and tell us that their women can live on 10s. then we will accept it. There is no one on the other side of the Committee who would for a moment agree that their women folk should be contented with 10s. a week, and our women folk are as good as theirs. I am not putting it any higher. I am giving their women folk more credit than they are willing to give to ours. If Eon. Members would not ask their wives to live on 10s. a week they have no right to ask my wife to live on 10s. There is no money in this country except what working men produce, and we are entitled to insurance. The time will come when this matter will be better understood by the electors. The time will come when the right hon. Gentleman, the Attorney-General will have something more to say than he has already said on the subject of the pensions of soldiers' widows. He says he knows what was being done by the Socialist Government a year ago. Would he mind telling us what are the intentions of his own Government with regard to soldiers' pensions? He has given no answer, and I want, and every Member on this side of the Committee wants, to know the answer.

Viscountess ASTOR: You have had it.

Mr. GRAHAM: We are remembering the men who really won the War.

Viscountess ASTOR: Oh!

Mr. GRAHAM: The Noble Lady has not anybody lying in France, and I have. You give me nothing, and it is my capital that you took. The capital of the working classes was taken for that purpose, and they gave thousands of pounds to useless individuals who only destroy life. When it comes to be a question of whether you
will give something more than 10s. a week to a working woman you tell her it is impossible. How does the Attorney-General know what it will cost in 1930 or 1950? He talks of looking upon this matter from the practical point of view. Nobody is practical except on that side of this Committee. It was your practical knowledge that brought about the War; it is your practical knowledge that leads to 2,000,000 people being unemployed and a quarter of them being refused payment,

The CHAIRMAN: This is very wide of the Amendment.

Mr. GRAHAM: I would not have said it had it not been for the line taken by the Attorney-General. He did not deal with the subject at all. He is the man who has introduced this matter It is obvious that the right hon. Gentle man was put up to tell us that we could talk as long as we liked, but that the Vote would be taken and the dumb dogs of the Tory party would come into the Lobby against us, and that when the subject is discussed in the country they will use their subsidised Press.

HON. MEMBERS: The "Daily Herald"!

The CHAIRMAN: I do ask the hon. Gentleman to keep to the question.

Mr. GRAHAM: I have nothing to do with the "Daily Herald." I am a reader of it, and I read the "Morning Post." It may be that the Government can say that 26s. 8d. would be too much. I could understand that position. I could understand that Government being prepared to reconsider the whole question with a view to finding common ground. We have some little knowledge of life; we are natives of this country, it is OUTS as much as theirs and we are just as anxious to see this country getting on as anybody. Our claim is that it is possible for a pension to be at such a figure as will enable a widow to at least maintain herself without being dependent upon charity or anybody else. There is a point as between 6s. 8d. and 10s., and I should have been delighted if the Minister had said that the Government agreed that 10s. is too little. There is not a Member on the other side who will say that 10s. is enough. The whole
House is unanimous that it is not. There is a reasonable ground for difference as to whether it should be 26s., and we are quite prepared to meet you. We are Members of this House, and it is our duty to try and find some arrangement which can be put before the country as the will of the whole House. We are prepared to meet you reasonably and fairly, but we cannot accept the attitude of the Minister that 10s. appears to be quite enough. I hope the Government will reconsider the matter, and that it will be possible for this Amendment, and perhaps the whole Bill, to go forward and reach the stage when it can go to the country not as the work of one section in the House but as the work of the House as a whole. The Minister of Health is aware of the fact that widows' pensions were under consideration by the late Labour Government. That means that the Labour Government are in sympathy with the principle. The only reason why their Bill was not put forward was because they did not remain in office. The present Government has come in and discussed the question, and the conclusion they have reached is that some scheme of this sort is advisable. There is agreement so far as the principle is concerned. The difference is with regard to amount. You are not satisfied that 10s. is enough. We are not satisfied that it is sufficient. We claim 26s. 8d. You say that is too much. There is room for compromise, but there is no justification for asking the country to accept a scheme in which the scale of payments is admittedly inadequate.

Mr. LAWSON: I think we on this side have good reason to complain of the spirit in which the Attorney-General answered the case put forward on behalf of the Amendment. He was able to rebut the statement made—and I am pleased to see that he has taken to reading the "Daily Herald." If he goes on, he will have the Home Secretary on his track, because he does not look kindly on the "Daily Herald." But although he was entitled to rebut the statement made, he was hardly entitled to do so in the professional manner he adopted. The Minister of Pensions knows that only a few days before the statement appeared in the "Daily Herald" we urged him to state whether there was to be any reduction in pensions, and he definitely avoided answering the question. The Attorney-
General says that this was merely an electoral device. I have not taken any part in the discussions so far, and I say frankly that I cannot understand why a Bill of this description has been introduced at all in view of the fact that it was not going to save a woman from having to apply to the Poor Law.

Mr. BECKETT: And we will give it them.

Mr. LAWSON: Interpret this Measure as you like in many parts of the country women will have to go to the Poor Law in order to get something more than it gives them in order to support themselves and their children. And our people will not have the slightest hesitation in making a handsome increase on what this Bill gives. Can you expect a woman to live on what this Bill gives her. A woman of to-day has great difficulty in making both ends meet on what is called a rational wage. I remember the case of a man who gave his wife his wages one Friday night. Later he found her crying and asked her why. She said she had paid the butcher but could not pay the baker and the grocer. He told her to pay the butcher and let the baker cry. It is indeed difficult where there is a regular wage, but no self-respecting person or authority would think of asking a woman to live on what she is going to receive under this Bill. If you are not going to keep them away from the Poor Law I would sooner this Bill had not been introduced. All we are asking is that there shall be such an increase as will give a woman a reasonable opportunity of living something like an ordinary existence. I do not know whether it is worth while asking the Government to reconsider the position but if this Bill goes through with the payments as proposed it will not make any contribution towards the social structure, and the country will not consider it as a material contribution towards the relief of widows and children. I do hope the Government, if they are not going to accept our proposal, are going at least to make some substantial increase on the amounts they have laid down in this Bill.

Sir F. HALL: I have listened to many discussions that have taken place on Measures brought forward by the Government for the alleviation of difficulties and troubles, but I have never found that any Government proposals
have been acceptable to hon. Members above the Gangway. The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. D. Graham) seemed to me to have let the cat out of the bag. He is rather annoyed, and there is no disguising the fact, to think that this Government has brought forward a Bill to alleviate the troubles of the widows and their children. I do not say that I think 10s. is sufficient to keep a woman in the position we should desire, but I wonder if hon. Members are prepared to go amongst the poor and say that because the Conservative Government have brought in this Bill they would not take 10R. a week but would rather have nothing at all. I remember when the Insurance Bill was first brought into the House. I heard the discussions in 1911 and 1912, and I remember that it was indicated that perhaps eventually it might be possible to effect some increase. This is the start of a Bill which is going to impose an enormous charge upon the taxpayers of the country.

The CHAIRMAN: The particular question is what the widows and children should have.

Sir F. HALL: With all deference, I venture to suggest that the one thing hangs over the other, because if you have to find the money you have to look where it comes from. I am glad the Government have made a start, that they have kept the promises they made. It is apparently not acceptable to hon. Members above the gangway because we have happened to bring the Bill in to show that the promises made at the last election are promises that have been carried out.

Mr. THOMAS: The Committee generally is indebted to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Dulwich (Sir F. Hall) for his contribution to the Debate. He started off by making it perfectly clear that the measure of our opposition to this Bill was political jealousy. He said "We, the Conservative party, having always proved ourselves to be the friends of the working class, and you on those benches—"

The CHAIRMAN: I did not allow the hon. and gallant Member to develop his argument. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not rebut an argument that was not developed.

Mr. THOMAS: I am only reaching the stage where you stopped him. I only want to show the Committee how remarkably consistent he is. He says he remembers when the Insurance Bill was introduced. So do I, and I remember the contribution he made to it. The contribution that he and his Friends made—

Viscountess ASTOR: We supported it.

Mr. THOMAS: The Noble Lady was not here, so she does not know.

Viscountess ASTOR: My husband was.

Mr. MACLEAN: He voted against it.

Viscountess ASTOR: He did not.

Mr. THOMAS: The contribution they made was to point out the number of rich people who would be kept busy licking stamps. Now, what is the object of a widows' pension scheme? Is it not, first, to prevent the widow with children being driven to work to the neglect of the children? That is an admitted state of affairs, and the only object of arguing the principle of a pension is to prevent that state of affairs and to say to the widow, "Instead of competing in the labour market, to your own ill-health and the ruination of your children your job is to go home and we will give you the opportunity of rearing your children in decency and comfort." This would not only give the child a better chance and remove the anxiety from the mother, but it would also, in its indirect effect, relieve the labour market. If that principle is agreed, is any hon. Member going to argue that the benefits provided in this Bill do that? Is any Member going to say that a widow with three children, with the 21s. a week provided under this Bill can stop at home and look after her children? No one will get up and say it is enough, and if they will not do that they have to admit two things. They have to admit that the Bill fails to carry out the principle underlying a widows' pension scheme, and -that the woman must of necessity supplement the allowance in some other way. The other way is the board of guardians or the neglect of the children. It is not because there is any political kudos in this, for I question very much whether any hon. Member in any part of the House will
go to his constituency to explain all the details of this Bill and assume he is going to be looked upon as a public benefactor. On the contrary, when you have to go to your constituencies and say that I voted in the House of Commons that 21s. a week was enough for a widow and three children you will get an answer you will not care about. [An HON. MEMBER: "It is better than nothing that you gave them!"] That is to say, because that party has held power as well as office for a period of about 30 years and we held office without power for eight months, you are going to justify this Measure by saying that for 30 years we neglected you, but for fear that the other people should come in again we are going to do something. The fact is you are not providing sufficient. You are still driving the woman either to the Poor Law or to the industrial field, and it is for that reason that we move the Amendment.

Mr. MACLEAN: The opposition which has been made to the Amendment by the Attorney-General is the opposition we are accustomed to have to any measures that are proposed from Labour Benches. The Attorney-General has been quoting figures to prove to the Committee how impossible it is for the Government to accept the Amendment which we have moved. He has informed us that the amount of money that would be required to meet the expenditure involved in this Amendment is too heavy for the Government to spend; it would be out of all proportion to the amount that would be paid in by the contributors to the fund. We have heard the Attorney-General as we have heard the Minister of Health and other right hon. and hon. Members use the same arguments time and time again. We have grown so accustomed to them that they fall upon deaf ears. They are. only phrases, and have no meaning what-ever to any individual who has heard them so often. Does the Attorney-General, when he uses this phrase, mean that in this country there is insufficient money to pay for pensions even on a contributory basis? Does he mean in the statement he has made that he has gone into the figures so closely and calculated the matter so accurately that he can come to that box and tell us across the floor that it is impossible for
the Government to accept this Amendment? I can remember when the same right hon. Gentleman stood at the very same box, and with the same bland smile upon his face, tell us that a certain legal decision he had given was a proper decision, and would carry through all the courts in this country, but it brought this country into a huge sum of indemnity for his bad law making. How do we know that his figures are not as wrong as his legal decision which he gave to the Government in those days?
Let me put this other point to the Minister of Health. He has told us the number of millions it is going to cost this country for a certain period of years. He has tried to harrow our souls and cause our skin to shrivel with the cheerful outlook of the bankruptcy of the scheme if the Committee carries or accepts our Amendment. We have heard that statement before with regard to figures from the various Departments that deal with these matters. Any question that arises on the Ministry of Pensions, any question that arises with regard to the Ministry of Education, or the Ministry of Labour, with any of the Departments that are involved in the raising and spending of sums of money— when anything is put before them asking for more money to be spent upon certain objects—we are met constantly with the story that this is going to cost so many millions three years hence, so many more millions 10 years hence, and a further number of millions 20 years hence, and so it goes on. Is it not possible that the Attorney-General, in the statement he made to this House and in the figures that he gave, may not be just as inaccurate as Ministers have been in the past. There is one other point to which I should like to draw the attention of the House. It is a point that has been touched upon by other speakers. Every Member in this House not sitting upon the front Government Bench has admitted that 10s. is inadequate for a widow to live upon without having to get an income from other sources. All are agreed upon that. I want to ask the Government—and I am willing to believe that Members sitting on the front Government Bench in their hearts are agreed that it is not a sufficient sum—will they take the Whips off and allow that humanitarian instinct that seems to be in
their followers to-night, that feeling that 10s. is not sufficient—will the Government allow their supporters to have a free vote, and go into the Lobby and follow the dictate of their hearts rather than the promptings and prodding of the Whip? From what I can see, there is quite a number of proddings required to get Members to go through the House sufficiently awake.
I want to put this point to the Minister of Health. The figures in the Bill have been pointed out to be similar to the pensions given to the ex-service man and his dependants. If the Ministry of Pensions considers that an allowance paid to the widow of an ex-service man and to the dependants of deceased ex-service men are to be at a certain figure if they are to live in anything resembling a modicum of decency and comfort, surely the Minister of Health is not going to give the lie to his colleague the Minister of Pensions. That is what it amounts to when the Minister of Health says that 10s. a week is adequate for a widow to live upon and for children to be brought up upon. Send to any cat and dog home— you think that is. humorous. It is evident some people have gone to that home and brought an object from it. I wish the widows for whom you are talking so much could hear you. All you can do is to laugh during the discussion upon widows' pensions. All you can do is to treat it as a joke. That is your Tory humanity. I wish the widows could see you. You would not get many votes from them at the next election.

Captain BRASS: We do not think about votes.

Mr. MACLEAN: If you wish to send a dog to a dog and cat home you will have to pay from three to four shillings more per week for maintaining that animal in the home than the Minister of Health is proposing to give for a widow under this Bill. Laugh now! The dogs are silent. There is no barking now. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about the cats?"] There is only one cat. I am asking hon. Members to consider that a dumb animal costs more to maintain than the Minister of Health proposes to give to a child under this particular Bill. Of course it is a matter of humour for the Minister himself. Perhaps I have a peculiar way of putting it, but it is the way I have been taught to put it. I have
been badly taught perhaps, but the fact that you remain silent when I put my point shows that you understood it. We have one thing that you have not got and that is manners.

Viscountess ASTOR: You called me a cat just now.

Mr. MACLEAN: No, I did not. I said there was only one cat.

Viscountess ASTOR: Well, I am the only one here.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I thought the question under discussion did not relate to cats, but to widows.

Mr. MACLEAN: We will now take the return journey from that home. I want the Minister and the Attorney-General, now that he is back, to bear in mind that the amount you are proposing to give is insufficient on the admission of your own supporters. I have asked if the Government would take their Whips off and allow a free vote on this question. You can carry another Amendment on the Report stage to bring in a smaller amount than is contained in this Amendment. There are many ways in which the Parliamentary Secretary can alter what has been done to-night, but if you put your Whips on to-night and get your followers to go into the Lobby against the Amendment, they may say as much as they like on the platform that 10s. was not sufficient and they did not consider it sufficient for the widows, but the fact that they voted for the 10s. with another Amendment on the Paper for a larger sum will be taken as conclusive evidence that they talk one way on the platform and act in another manner in the House of Commons. It is not a political issue. [Laughter.] Why should widows' pensions be a political issue? [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] It is quite evident some hon. Members do not understand their own feelings from one moment to another. When I say it is not a political issue, they laugh, and when I ask why it should be, they agree. If their minds are in such a state that they do not know what they are doing from one minute to another they are not in a fit state to vote. I make no appeal to the right hon. Gentleman.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is neglecting the widow.

Mr. MACLEAN: I agree that the Bill is neglecting the widow. The hon. Members on the opposite side seem in too hilarious a mood to know what they are doing; they seem to be badly mixed up. I think the sooner the Attorney-General and the Minister of Health withdraw this Bill and bring in some more appropriate Bill, better conceived, with higher benefits and on a non-contributory basis, with the money taken from the people who can afford it, the better pleased will the widows and orphans be.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: An important question was put by the right hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas). He asked whether it was the view of the Government that the sum of money which the widow and children will be granted under this Bill is deemed to be adequate in itself, or is it the intention of the Government that some other sum of money shall supplement this sum in some other way? That is a most important question. If we are to assume that money is to be available from Poor Law sources then, obviously, this Bill will not completely do away with what is usually called the taint of the Poor Law. In other words, if this Bill is an attempt to remove the widow and the children from the necessity for appealing to the Poor Law guardians, then the sum of money which ought to be at the disposal of this Bill should be far greater than that actually provided. In large industrial areas the ordinary weekly rent for an ordinary working-class cottage is anything from 8s. to 10s. per week. It follows that there must be some other resource to which the widow and her children must be able to resort other than the sum provided in this Bill. According to it they are to receive something like 21s. a week. If you only allow three meals per day, that means Is. per day between the whole family. A shilling a day to cover three meals is wholly inadequate. We ought to have an assurance from the Minister that there will be available from other sources a sum of money which will enable them to live fairly full and complete lives.
4.0 A.M.
I am probably more interested in education than in other problems. At the age of 11 children in this country have an opportunity to sit for an examination for secondary education. What is going to happen to the child of the widow with 21s. per week? The effect will be that
such children will be condemned by the poverty of the home to give up the opportunity for secondary education to which their intellectual gifts entitle them. This kind of thing does happen even now in homes where the family income is considerably more than one guinea per week. I have the memory of a child whom it was once my privilege to teach in an elementary school. That child was a brilliant mathematician, but by reason of the poverty of the home was unable to follow the opportunities for secondary education. I submit that if we are going to allow this widow and her children only one guinea per week it is utterly impossible for bright children in such homes to look forward to anything like a fair chance in a secondary educational institution. Is it, or is it not, the view of the Government that this one guinea per week is to be regarded as the whole sum that is to be available from all sources for the widow and children? If it is, then, in effect, it means that we are not only condemning these brighter children to a prospect of being deprived of an opportunity which other children get normally, but to a physical standard of life far below that accorded to the ordinary criminal in the gaols of this country. I speak from memory, when I say that the average cost per head of the ordinary criminals in the gaols works out at from about £2 to £2 5s., but the widow with three children, who cannot be accused of any sort of criminality at all and who are only unfortunate by reason of the accidents of life, is to be condemned to live on £l Is., unless the Minister is able to assure us that some other money is available.
It is therefore of the highest importance to get a considered answer from the right hon. Gentleman as to what exactly is in his mind. If it is to be from the Poor Law that any other sum is to be available, then we are not acting in accord with even the least enlightened opinion of the day, which demands—and it is to be found in all political quarters—that the taint of the Poor Law shall be removed from the working-class home. I submit that point in regard to education, because I feel intensely that we ought not to raise any artificial barrier, and particularly the barrier of poverty, against the educational advancement of the children of the poor
and working-class homes as is implied in the terms of this Bill.

Mr. BROAD: I want to insist that we are not considering in this Amendment any amount of increase, but whether we have a reasonable case for suggesting that there should be some discrimination between a pension allowed to a young girl without any dependants and a widow or an old widow with children dependent on her. We have a reasonable case to put, and we have a right to a much better reply than that beautiful mixture of oil and vinegar which we had from the Attorney-General, who does not seem to be able to treat us as we should be treated. The whole course of the Debate on this Amendment would have been very different had the right hon. Gentleman abstained from making a speech of that character. I wish to ask the Minister of Health whether he can justify the position that, because he has adopted a contributory basis, a young woman who has, perhaps, never left industry, who has only been married a year or so, and who has no encumbrances, should have 10s., or any other sum, per week for the rest of her life, and that because she will get that amount, we cannot afford to pay more than a miserable £l Is. a week to the widow with three children. A contributory scheme is condemned if that is an essential feature of it, and the country will agree in that condemnation.
From the point of view of national economy, the children are the greatest asset which a nation has, and a woman is doing her full share of the nation's work if she looks after her home and brings up her children properly. She cannot do that on the amount provided in this Bill. She has either to go out to work or to go to the Poor Law, and the community will have to find the money one way or another. Is it any blessing at all to the woman who has at present to go to the Poor Law to get relief for herself and her children, to say, "You can go to the Post Office for part of your money, and the next day you will have to line up before the relieving officer for the rest"? It is a mockery to call that a pension; it is a miserable subterfuge. You may say, "This is a beginning; it is a provision, but you must go out to work and earn the rest." From the point of view of economy, and from the knowledge we have of the large number
of women who are unemployed, for whom there is no relief work, it would be better if we could add to the guinea a week for the widow and children the amount which we are paying the single young women who cannot get work. Then we might benefit the widow and children and find work for the unemployed young women. It would cost the community no more, and would be doing two valuable things. It would be placing the unemployed women in work and allowing the amount of unemployment pay to the widow to stay at home with her children.
This is not like an old age pension, where one may add a little bit by getting an odd job or a lighter job, or where, at the end of life, a man may be expected to have accumulated some little savings of his own. A young couple, with children under 14, will have had no opportunity of saving money. The earlier part of their life is spent in trying to acquire something to start a home, and there is no other opportunity to add to their savings. In fact, they cannot get enough to manage with. I am speaking with a knowledge of the working man with a family, until they have sent out their children into the world. The pension for the widow and children should be adequate, from the industrial and national point of view, in order that she may be kept out of the workshop and off the Poor Law, and may keep her home decently, and give the children the necessary subsistence to make them worthy citizens.
I ask the Minister of Health to recognise this and to accept this Amendment. Then the question of the amount of the discrimination which will follow can be settled when we come to consider consequential Amendments. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will recognise the strength of our case. If he would go to public meetings and ask the women there their opinions, they would say, "We have never yet asked for a pension for the healthy young woman with no children at all." If the right hon. Gentleman wants to know where the money is coming from, then these young widows would say, "We do not want 10s. a week for the rest of our lives at the expense of the widow with children. Give something more adequate to the widow with children and let us help."
In addressing many meetings on this subject, I have found that that has been the cry of all the women in the land.
I have addressed many of these women's meetings and the cry has been that it is a shame to pension any young woman who is in an industry. As a matter of fact they did not want pensions, but they consider it is a disgrace to give this miserable pittance to widows with children. We have a strong case in this respect, and I hope we shall hear something from the Minister which will deal with the point that has been raised.

Captain FRASER: The Committee may rest assured that I shall not stand long between the right hon. Gentleman and the Committee. I have one point to make, and I will make it briefly. The hon. Member for Goyan (Mr. Maclean) tried to suggest that these pensions were inadequate by comparison with the pensions paid to ex-service men and their dependants, and he sought to make the argument that if the Minister of Pensions regarded certain sums as proper for dependants of ex-service men then it must necessarily follow that the Minister of Health must regard similar sums as inevitable in any scheme he brought forward. And outside this House the argument will be used that if he does not pay such sums he will be doing a mean and despicable thing. I therefore intervene to deal briefly with the merits of that case. The community is in a different position in regard to the dependants of ex-service men. The community entered into an arrangement with the ex-service men, not a written but a moral obligation, to the effect that if damage or disability came upon them and their dependants were left in the lurch, that the community would deal with them on an unprecedented scale having regard to the services they rendered to the community. It will be argued that every man renders service to the community and that one service is as good as another, and that these widows should have the same pensions as widows of ex-service men. From a humanitarian point of view there is no one who would not wish that to be done, but as a matter of equity and moral contract there is no analogy between the two cases, and I submit that the suggestion that anything mean or despicable is being done when, in giving reasonable and generous pro-
vision for ex-service men and their dependants you do not make similar provision in a totally different Bill, is not a fair suggestion. May I deal with one other general aspect that has been taken up by almost every speaker.
It has been suggested that no one on this side of the Committee will say that 10s. or 20s. is adequate, and that consequently this Bill fails to achieve the fundamental object which in a widows' pensions Bill must be to remove widows from the necessity of having to earn money and thus in some measure to neglect their children, or obtaining relief from the Poor Law guardians. The right hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) pointed out that any Measure which did not succeed in removing widows from this difficult position was a miserable failure, and some of his colleagues said they would have preferred that the Bill had never been introduced. As has been said already, I think the people of this country will be more satisfied with the small allowance, which everyone wishes could be increased, than the utter failure of the party opposite to make any provision at all in spite of the pledges they made. It is recent history that the party opposite, while promising to do something in this matter, did nothing at all, did not even consult their Minister of Health about it, and because we come forward and do something practical, we are charged with being mean and despicable, and that the Bill itself is utterly useless. It is also said that the Bill is useless because it does not deal with a large number of anomalies which are bound to arise in any complicated Measure of this sort. Earlier on it was suggested that we should go home because some persons were thick-headed. I am perfectly certain that the Government know what figures it is giving to the Committee, and that Ministers are not likely to fall into any errors in this respect. I hope the Minister of Health will answer in the way in which he is capable of answering the rambling criticisms which have been flowing for such a long time, and enable us to get on with reasonable work instead of wasting electric light and everybody's time.

Mr. ARTHUR GREENWOOD: Most of us on these benches welcome the speech of the hon. and gallant Member who has shown a little more spirit than
his colleagues in the Conservative party. I pass by the muzzled state in which they find themselves to complain of the manner in which the Government has conducted this Debate. On every Amendment we have had a perfunctory speech from the Minister of Health, with no reasoned statement of the Government's' case and no attempt to deal with the arguments put forward. The stock argument from the Minister of Health and the Attorney-General has been that everything that emanates from this side of the House is an electioneering device, which is no argument, and which is untrue. Another method of dealing with the question has been to gibe at the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, which again is perfectly irrelevant, and the Attorney-General, in dealing with this Amendment, which raises one of the most important points in the Bill, lashed himself into a white heat of fury, It is not surprising that Members on these benches, who have repeatedly put questions to the responsible Minister regarding the future of our pensions and got no satisfactory reply, are rather disquieted. And it is a legitimate argument in favour of this Amendment that, at least, it would do something to stabilise the pensions of ex-service men and their widows and dependants.
Another stock argument is to complain that it is not possible in the existing financial circumstances to do all that is desired, and on more than one occasion we have been treated to figures of millions of pounds. The Attorney-General gave us certain figures as to the cost. If I understood him aright, in 1926–27 the proposal submitted in the Amendment now under discussion would cost £10,600,000, by 1935–36 it would cost £26,000,000, and by 1960—how forward-looking the Conservative party is in these days—it would cost £53,900,000. These figures, as absolute figures, are quite meaningless. To a small boy Is. may seem a fabulous sum. Questions of money are relative. The only true test is to compare costs of this kind with the income of the nation, which is the national pocket from which all payments of this kind must come. In 1926–27 our proposal, we understand, would cost about £10,500,000, and that is roughly one-third of 1 per cent. of the nation's income each year, or one three-hundredth part.
If this nation is not prepared to find so insignificant a fraction of its income for widows and dependants, it has no right to hold its head up in the world. We were treated to the figure of £53,000,000 odd in 1960. Nobody knows what proportion of our national income £53,000,000 will be in 35 years' time, but, even if we assume that 35 years hence this country is producing no more than it is to-day and that its income is at the present level, the cost of these proposals will not amount to more than one and a-half per cent., roughly, of the national income, and that is, of course, without allowing any of the quite obvious deductions that it is possible to make from that cost, because the figures that we suggest would relieve the whole of the widows of the country and their dependent children from the Poor Law. The question is not whether widows should be provided for. The question is how the cost is to be met. Widows are provided for somehow at the present time and their children are provided for; and what is proposed now is to alter in some degree the way in which they are maintained. Our submission is that the only effect of this Bill will be either to subsidise wages or to relieve Poor Law authorities, because the scale is not adequate enough to relieve these people of the necessity of finding wage-earning employment or going to the boards of guardians. We believe that the scale ought to be sufficient to provide adequate pensions and that there should be no need for recourse to the Poor Law or for widows with children to seek employment.
Everybody admits that the figures in the Bill are inadequate for complete maintenance, and all it means is that the Government say the best they can do is to supplement the existing admittedly unsatisfactory methods of maintaining widows and children, that is, either by driving them out to work or driving

them to the boards of guardians. We submit that that is not sufficiently good, and we are not at all dismayed by the question of cost. If the people of this country and the Government of this country really desire to pay pensions to widows on the scale that we suggest, it could be done, and the Government know it. It depends on how much they care to do it. They cannot have their money and spend it, and, of course, if the Government choose to spend their money in other ways, a scheme of this kind must be crippled. We have had an example already of the way the Government prefer to spend their money. Our charge against hon. Members opposite is that when they had the opportunity, with a handsome surplus, to have provided a scheme as generous as we propose in this series of Amendments, they preferred rather to distribute the money to a relatively small number of people who were infinitely better off than the widows and their dependent children. On these grounds I think the Government stand condemned. I think we are entitled to a serious statement from the Minister of Health on this question of the scale of benefits. I never expect the Government to hearken to our words of wisdom, but at least the Minister might explain in detail his objections to the series of Amendments that are down on the Paper. This Debate has gone on for quite a long time. I know it is a large question, but it would help Members to shorten the Debate if the right hon. Gentleman would at this stage intervene, and express the views of the Government and the muzzled Members who sit behind him.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 164: Noes, 77.

Division No. 227.]
AYES.
[4.33 a.m.


Albery, Irving James
Brass, Captain W.
Campbell, E. T.


Astor, Viscountess
Brassey, Sir Leonard
Cazalet, Captain Victor A.


Balniel, Lord
Briggs, J. Harold
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)


Banks, Reginald Mitchell
Briscoe, Richard George
Chapman, Sir S.


Barnett, Major sir Richard
Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Charteris, Brigadier-General J.


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Churchman, Sir Arthur C.


Beamish, Captain T. P. H.
Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Clayton, G. C.


Bethell, A.
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Cobb, Sir Cyril


Betterton, Henry B.
Burgoyne. Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Burton, Colonel H. W.
Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.


Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart
Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Couper, J. B.


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Courtauld, Major J. S.


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Ropner, Major L.


Davidson, J. (Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)
Rye, F. G.


Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.
Hume, Sir G. H.
Salmon, Major I.


Davies, A. V. (Lancaster, Royton)
Huntingfield, Lord
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Hutchison, G. A. Clark (Midl'n & P'bl's)
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Dawson, sir Philip
Jacob, A. E.
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mel. (Renfrew, W.)


Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W. R., Sowerby)


Drewe, C.
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)


Eden, Captain Anthony
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Shepperson, E. W.


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Lamb, J. Q.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Elliot, Captain Walter E.
Lane-Fox, Colonel George R.
Spender Clay, Colonel H.


Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Everard, W. Lindsay
Lynn, Sir R. J.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
MacAndrew, Charles Glen
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)


Fielden, E. B.
McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus
steel, Major Samuel Strang


Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Macintyre, I.
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
McLean, Major A.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Fraser, Captain Ian
Macmillan, Captain H.
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Malone, Major P. B.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Margesson, Captain D.
Templeton, W. P.


Gee, Captain R.
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Gilmour. Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Moore, Sir Newton J.
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell


Goff, Sir Park
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Greene, W. P. Crawford
Nail, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Nelson, Sir Frank
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Neville, R. J.
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L.(Kingston-on-Hull)


Hammersley, S. S.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Hanbury, C.
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Warrender, Sir Victor


Harmon, Patrick Joseph Henry
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Water-house, Captain Charles


Harland, A.
Oakley, T.
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


Hartington, Marquess of
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Wells, S. R.


Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Pennefather, Sir John
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Perring, William George
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Hawke, John Anthony
Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)


Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Wise, Sir Fredric


Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)
Pielou, D. P.
Womersley, W. J.


Henniker-Hughan, Vice-Adm. Sir A.
Price, Major C. W. M.
Wragg, Herbert


Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Radford, E. A.



Hilton, Cecil
Raine, W.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D.(St. Marylebone)
Ramsden, E.
Major Hennessy and Major Cope.


Holt, Captain H. P.
Rentoul, G. S.



NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Grundy, T. W.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)


Ammon, Charles George
Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark, N.)
Murnin, H.


Barnes, A.
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Oliver, George Harold


Barr, J.
Hardie, George D.
Palin, John Henry


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Hayday, Arthur
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)


Broad, F. A.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Hirst, G. H.
Potts, John S.


Buchanan, G.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Scurr, John


Charleton, H. C.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Cluse, W. S.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Sitch, Charles H.


Compton, Joseph
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Cove, W. G.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Kelly, W. T.
Stamford, T. W.


Crawfurd, H. E.
Kennedy, T.
Stephen, Campbell


Dalton, Hugh
Kirkwood, D.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lansbury, George
Thurtle, E.


Day, Colonel Harry
Lawson, John James
Warns, G. H.


Dennison, R.
Lowth, T.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Fenby, T. D.
Lunn, William
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Welsh, J. C.


Gibbins, Joseph
Mackinder, W.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Gillett, George M.
MacLaren, Andrew
Windsor, Walter


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)



Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Maxton, James
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Hayes.


Groves, T.
Montague, Frederick

Question put accordingly, "That those words he there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 77; Noes, 167.

Division No. 228.]
AYES.
[4.40 a.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Barr, J.
Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)


Ammon, Charles George
Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Buchanan, G.


Barnes, A.
Broad, F. A.
Charleton, H. C.


Cluse, W. S.
Hirst, G. H.
Palin, John Henry


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)


Compton, Joseph
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Cove, W. G.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Potts, John S.


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Scurr, John


Crawfurd, H. E.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Dalton, Hugh
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Kelly, W. T.
Sitch, Charles H.


Day, Colonel Harry
Kennedy, T.
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Donnison, R.
Kirkwood, D.
Smith, Ben (Becmondsey, Rotherhithe)


Fenby, T. D.
Lansbury, George
Stamford, T. W.


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Lawson, John James
Stephen, Campbell


Gibbins, Joseph
Lowth, T.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Gillett, George M.
Lunn, William
Thurtle, E.


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Warne, G. H.


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Mackinder, W.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermilne)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
MacLaren, Andrew
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Groves, T.
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Welsh, J. C.


Grundy, T. W.
Maxton, James
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark, N.)
Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)
Windsor, Walter


Hall, F. (York, w. R., Normanton)
Montague, Frederick



Hardie, George D.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hayday, Arthur
Murnin, H.
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Hayes.


Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Oliver, George Harold



NOES.


Albery, Irving James
Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)


Astor, Viscountess
Gee, Captain R.
Oakley, T.


Balniel, Lord
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William


Banks, Reginald Mitchell
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Pennefather, Sir John


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Goff, Sir Park
Perring, William George


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Beamish, Captain T. P. H.
Gunston Captain D. W.
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Bethell, A.
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Pielou, D. P.


Betterton, Henry B.
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Price, Major C. W. M.


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Hammersley, S. S.
Radford, E. A.


Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart
Hanbury, C.
Raine, W.


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Ramsden, E.


Brass, Captain W.
Harland, A.
Rentoul, G. S.


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Hartington, Marquess of
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Briggs, J. Harold
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)


Briscoe, Richard George
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Ropner, Major L.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Hawke, John Anthony
Rye, F. G.


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Salmon, Major I.


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Henniker-Hughan, Vice-Adm. Sir A.
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W.)


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Hilton, Cecil
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W. R., Sowerby)


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Holt. Capt. H. P.
Shepperson, E. W.


Campbell, E. T.
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Spender Clay, Colonel H.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Chapman, Sir S.
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Hume, Sir G. H.
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)


Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Huntingfield, Lord
Steel Major Samuel Strang


Clayton, G. C.
Hutchison, G. A. Clark (Midl'n & P'bl's)
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Jacob, A. E.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Couper, J. B.
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Templeton, W. P.


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Lamb, J. Q.
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Lane-Fox, Colonel George R.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Lumley, L. R.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Davidson, J. (Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)
Lynn, Sir R. J.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.
Mac Andrew, Charles Glen
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Davies, A. V. (Lancaster, Royton)
McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Macintyre, I.
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Dawson, Sir Philip
McLean, Major A.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Mac Millan, Captain H.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Drewe, C.
Malone, Major P. B.
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


Eden, Captain Anthony
Margesson, Captain D.
Wells, S. R.


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Elliot, Captain Walter E.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
Moore, Sir Newton J.
Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)


Everard, W. Lindsay
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
wise, Sir Fredric


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Womersley, W. J.


Fielden, E. B.
Nail, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph
Wragg, Herbert


Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Nelson, Sir Frank



Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Neville, R. J.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Fraser, Captain Ian
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Major Hennessy and Major Cope.


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

Sir J. COLLINS: I beg to move, in page 1, line 12, after the word "man," to insert the words
who—

(a) has a dependent child or children; or
(b) has attained, at the time of her husband's death, the age of 50 years."
In the absence of my right hon. Friends, I will be very brief. The Committee in its wisdom has decided to set aside from public funds and from moneys contributed by insured persons a certain sum of money for the purpose of the Bill. Therefore, it becomes the duty of the Committee at this hour of the morning to decide the best way in which this sum can be spent. We believe that the money will be better spent in giving larger sums to widows under 50 who have children. That, in a very few words, is the object of the Amendment. I know it may well be said that a childless widow at 30 should get a pension. We would all desire her to get a pension, but there is only a certain sum of money available, and in this Amendment which we move to insert we believe that the money will be given to more deserving cases than the Clause as it at present stands provides.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The Amendment must be read in conjunction with a consequential one on the next page. The effect of the two Amendments taken together is to exclude from the provisions of the Bill the childless widow or the widow, with children under 14, who is herself under 50 years of age, and to utilise any money that may be saved in that way to increase the pensions payable to the widows who may be entitled under the Bill, giving them 15s. instead of 10s. In considering an Amendment of that kind, which is an interesting variant on the scheme we have proposed, one must bear in mind that this Bill is a compulsory contributory scheme. If you are going to compel a man to make provision under a scheme, and thereby to limit any resources which he might otherwise be disposed to use to provide for his widow, it is rather a stronger order to say that his widow shall not be entitled to benefit if she happens to be under a particular and arbitrary age. It is quite certain that under any scheme of this kind you certainly would have some tremendous hardships. If the hon. Gentleman will turn to the table in the actuary's report
on page 15, he will see that in one year there will be upwards of 8,000 widows between the ages of 35 and 50 who, by his proposals, will be excluded from the benefits of the Bill. Those 8,000 widows, who would be excluded every year, would certainly be vocal in their protests. Take the case of a widow of 49, with a child of 12. (She will get a pension for two years, but nothing more under this Bill, either at the age of 65 or 70. A widow of 50, however, just a year older, will get a pension for life, though she had no children at all. A widow of 49, whose youngest child has just passed 14, will be wholly cut out, while a widow of 80 will get a- pension for life. You will get innumerable hard cases of that kind, which no one can possibly justify, if you introduce an arbitrary provision of that kind.
When I come to the saving to be made by the proposal in the Amendment, I find it is comparatively small, while the additional charge involved by raising the widow's pension from 10s. to 15s. runs very quickly into a large figure. For instance, I find that in 1925–26, the current year, the additional charge would be £600,000, but next year it would rise to £3,200,000. If the widow's pension is going to be raised from 10s. to 15s. a week, that will mean that you will have to raise the old age pension to the same sum, because you cannot allow a widow to receive 15s. up to the age of 70 and then cut her down to 10s. You will have to give the same pension right away through. Therefore, to get at the true extra cost, you must not only take the additional charge I have mentioned, but add 50 per cent. to the cost of the existing old age pensions under the Old Age Pensions Act. For that reason it will be seen that the proposal is one which the Government cannot possibly accept.

Mr. THOMAS: If any evidence were needed that we are trying to consider this Bill in an equitable way, it is to be found in the fact that on this occasion we are going to support the Government. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I can quite understand what a shock it must be to the Government, after their treatment of us this evening—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—to find us taking this magnanimous action. After all, we are not actuated by political expediency.

Mr. DENNIS HERBERT: Virtue with the dawn!

Mr. THOMAS: We are only concerned to face facts. I cannot help reminding the Minister of Health that about two o'clock this morning he was delivering a speech which contained the reverse arguments on the same principle to those which he has just set out. When we were dealing with the anomaly of the injustice of compelling some people to pay 4d for Id. of benefit, the right hon. Gentleman said this was an insurance scheme, and that we must consider things all together. But, on this particular Amendment, he says, "Look what a grave injustice it would be to make people pay for something which they were not receiving." As between the inconsistency of my right hon. Friend and the absurdity of the Liberal proposal, we are going to support the Government.

5.0 A.M.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir JOSEPH NALL: The proceedings on this Bill illustrate the unfortunate position in which we find ourselves in taking the Committee stage of a Measure of this importance in Committee of the Whole House. Points of the kind contained in this Amendment require very great consideration, which it is quite obvious they will not get at this time. The right hon. Gentleman said, and rightly, that, so far as the Movers of the Amendment are concerned, the Amendment should be taken in conjunction with other Amendments which they have put on the Paper. The results of those Amendments, if they were all adopted, would be, of course, to upset the passage of the Bill. I want for a moment to deal with this Amendment, with a slight variation which might be made on its merits. There is undoubtedly a very great prejudice against the proposal in this Bill that childless young widows should draw pensions in the early years of life, when they are as capable as any single women of earning their own living. If this Amendment were adopted, so that it obliged the widow without children to wait until she was 35 years of age before drawing a pension, the Amendment would be one which would commend itself to the Committee as one which ought to be considered by the Minister for inclusion in the Bill. I want to ask the Minister not to say the final word to-night on this question of the
qualifying age. There does not appear to me to be the slightest justification for paying a pension to a childless woman under the age of 35 years who is perfectly well able to earn her own living. I do ask the Minister to give some indication to Members on this side of the Committee that he will give some consideration to this aspect of the matter in order that some Amendment may possibly be made in the latter Clauses of the Bill.

Major CRAWFURD: As has been pointed out, the purport of this Amendment is simply to raise the question of whether it would not be better to concentrate on the cases which are, on the whole, more needy and, for the moment, leave other cases to look after themselves. I would like to say, in reply to the right hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas), who has described the proposal as an absurdity, that it is simply suggesting a choice between two possible courses of action. In reference to another amendment he said it might be better to do a few things well than many things badly. The Amendment now proposed is a suggestion that one or two things should be done well, and the benefit concentrated, instead of smaller benefits being more dispersed. It is clear from the statement of the Minister and his unexpected ally that it is quite useless for anybody to proceed with this Amendment, and so I propose to withdraw it.

HON. MEMBERS: No.

Mr. J. H. HUDSON: I wish to reassure the hon. and gallant Member (Sir J. Nail) with regard to the consideration he has now put before the Committee. It is astonishing to find him supporting the Liberal party in a proposal of this sort. When he said he was anxious that widows under 35 should be in the same position as single women, the Bill which we are considering will itself decide that issue. If he is desirous that the widow should be in the position of earning her living, the small benefits this Bill provides will be quite effective in driving the widow into the labour market to earn her living. I remember that a little time ago the hon. Member was pushing for the working girl being compelled to earn her living in another direction—as a servant girl. The provisions of the Bill will be sufficient to enable effective
economic pressure to be brought to bear to compel the widow to go on the market as cheap labour.

Sir J. NALL: I only rise to say in reply that I have never advocated that anybody should be compelled to follow any particular kind of occupation. What I said, and say now, is, that there is no justification for any able-bodied woman, whether she be a widow or a spinster, who is able to earn her own living, being granted public charity.

Amendment negatived.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The Amendment, in the name of the right

hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden), in page 1, line 13, to leave out the word "ten" in order to insert instead thereof the word "twenty," is consequential.

Mr. MacDONALD: I think it is, but, perhaps, we had better move it and have a Division at once.
I beg to move, in page 1, line 13, to leave out the word "ten," and to insert instead thereof the word "twenty."

Question put, "That the word 'ten' stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 166; Noes, 73.

Division No. 229.]
AYES.
[5.10 a.m.


Albery, Irving James
Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)


Astor, Viscountess
Gee, Captain R.
Oakley, T.


Balniel, Lord
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)


Banks, Reginald Mitchell
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Pennefather, Sir John


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Goff, Sir Park
Perring, William George


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Beamish, Captain T. P. H.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Bethell, A.
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Pielou, D. P.


Betterton, Henry B.
Hail, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Price, Major C. W. M.


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Hammersley, S. S.
Radford, E. A.


Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart
Hanbury, C.
Raine, W.


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Ramsden, E.


Brass, Captain W.
Harland, A.
Rentoul, G. S.


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Hartington, Marquess of
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Briggs, J. Harold
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)


Briscoe, Richard George
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Tolnes)
Ropner, Major L.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Hawke, John Anthony
Rye, F. G.


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Salmon, Major I.


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan
Henniker-Hughan, Vice-Adm. Sir A.
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W. R., Sowerby)


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mel. (Renfrew, W.)


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Hilton, Cecil
Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Shepperson, E. W.


Campbell, E. T.
Holt, Captain H. P.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Spender Clay, Colonel H.


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)


Chapman, Sir S.
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Hume, Sir G. H.
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Huntingfield, Lord
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Clayton, G. C.
Hutchison, G. A. Clark (Midl'n & P'bl's)
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Jacob, A. E.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Templeton, W. P.


Couper, J. B.
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Lane-Fox, Colonel George R.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Lumley, L. R.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Davidson, J. (Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)
Lynn, Sir R. J.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.
MacAndrew, Charles Glen
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Davies, A. V. (Lancaster, Royton)
McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Macintyre, I.
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Dawson, Sir Philip
McLean, Major A.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Macmillan, Captain H.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Drewe, C.
Malone, Major P. B.
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


Eden, Captain Anthony
Margesson, Captain D.
Wells, S. R.


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Elliot, Captain Walter E.
Monsell, Eyres. Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)


Everard, W. Lindsay
Moore, Sir Newton J.
Wise, Sir Fredric


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Womersley, W. J.


Fielden, E. B.
Nail, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph
Wragg, Herbert


Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Nelson, Sir Frank



Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Neville, R. J.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Major Cope and Captain Viscount Curzon.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)


Ammon, Charles George
Groves, T.
Montague, Frederick


Barnes, A.
Grundy, T. W.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)


Barr, J.
Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark, N.)
Murnin, H.


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Hall, Fredk. (Yorks, Normanton)
Oliver, George Harold


Broad, F. A.
Hardie, George D.
Palin, John Henry


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Hayday, Arthur
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Buchanan, G.
Hayes, John Henry
Potts, John S.


Charleton, H. C.
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Scurr, John


Cluse, W. S.
Hirst, G. H.
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Compton, Joseph
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Sitch, Charles H.


Cove, W. G.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Crawfurd, H. E.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Stamford, T. W.


Dalton, Hugh
Kelly, W. T.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Kennedy, T.
Thurtle, E.


Day, Colonel Harry
Kirkwood, D.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Donnison, R.
Lansbury, George
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Lawson, John James
Welsh, J. C.


Fenby, T. D.
Lowth, T.
Windsor, Walter


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Lunn, William



Gibbins, Joseph
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberaven)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Gillett, George M.
Mackinder, W.
Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr.


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
MacLaren, Andrew
Warne.


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I beg to move, in page 1, line 15, to leave out the words "of fourteen," and to insert instead thereof the words "hereinafter specified."
It would be convenient, I think, if I explained what precisely is meant by the Amendment. I have noted an Amendment on the Paper in the names of several hon. Members, and the proposal to raise the age for pensions from 14 to 16 is one with which, personally, I have very great sympathy. I should like to have made allowances payable in respect of children between the ages of 14 and 16, but unfortunately I am debarred from doing so.

Mr. BECKETT: On a point of Order. If the Amendment of the Minister of Health is taken now, it will rule out an Amendment on the Paper in the name of the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, which has already been discussed on the general Debate, but on which the Committee has had no opportunity of expressing an opinion.

The CHAIRMAN: I understood, in accordance with the statement of the Deputy-Chairman, that a general discussion was taken on the first of these Amendments, and that a specific Division was taken on the scale.

Mr. BECKETT: The further Amendment was taken at the request of the Leader of the Opposition to leave out "ten" and insert "twenty," but the Committee had no opportunity of expressing in the Division Lobby its sense of the other Amendment.

The CHAIRMAN: That is part of the proposed new subsequent scale. The Division, I understand, was taken on the "ten" and "twenty" by agreement, and all the separate Amendments which really form part of one scale was not divided on. That was generally understood by the Committee before I resumed the Chair, and the Deputy-Chairman called the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health.

Mr. BECKETT: I do not want to be unduly pertinacious, but I do think you have not been rightly informed, or there has been some misunderstanding as to the actual vote.

Mr. DENNIS HERBERT: Has not the Committee retained the word "ten," and does that not debar—? [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"]

The CHAIRMAN: There is no question of right in any of these cases. The Chair has the right to select Amendments. My information is that there was a general Debate on the new scale proposed, and it was arranged that two Divisions should be taken, but not that each separate figure should be divided upon.

Mr. B. SMITH: Only one was taken.

The CHAIRMAN: That was the Division as to whether the Government scale or the scale proposed by the late Chancellor of the Exchequer should prevail. That is now over.

Mr. MacDONALD: I think, if you will allow me to say so, that I associate myself with your reading of the matter. There was a general Debate, and the first Division was assumed to cover the larger points, but in order to make it quite certain we had another Division on the first part of the details of the scheme, which I think, under the circumstances, is quite satisfactory.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I was going to comment on the proposal to raise the age of children from 14 to 16 years. I feel debarred from accepting the proposition by the financial considerations. It is not only the additional cost of children, but it also involves a further cost in respect of widows' pensions, because the pensions of existing widows depend upon their having children under the age of 14. If you raised the age from 14 to 16 it would bring in a number of widows whose children are now actually between the ages of 14 and 16. The cost, I am advised, in children's allowances only, without the widows', would be £300,000 in the first year, rising to over £1,000,000 in the second year, nearly £1,500,000 in the third year, and getting to a maximum of £1,800,000 in 1930. I have therefore had to abandon the idea of accepting any proposal generally to raise the age to 16. And now I come to the interesting proposal of the hon. Member for the Bridgeton Division of Glasgow (Mr. Maxton) that the allowances should be given in the case of children who are receiving full-time instruction at a university college, school, or other educational establishment. That seems to me to be going rather further than is justified, but I have got some sympathy with the idea that when there is a child of specially talented qualities one should do all one possibly can to enable the child to continue its education, and if the hon. Member will be good enough to look at page 261 he will see there an Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for East Ham which provides that any such child—that is, in this case, an orphan child—should receive an allowance as long as it is at school up to the age of 16. That is a limitation to the age of 16 which I think is one that might properly be accepted, and I am therefore proposing to amend the Bill in order to extend the allowances to the case of children who are receiving full-time in-
struction in a day school up to the age of 16. In order to do that, the first Amendment is to leave out the words "of fourteen' in line 15, on page 1, Clause 1, and insert "hereinafter specified." I have to make a similar Amendment in line 20, and then I shall propose a new Sub-section on the next page, line 12, which will read:
The specified age in relation to any child shall be fourteen or the age not exceeding sixteen up to which the child remains in full-time instruction in a day-school.
That, I hope, will go some considerable way to meet the views of hon. Members opposite.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I am very glad that the Minister has seen his way to meet us in this matter and that he has recognised—as some of us have felt very keenly—the very regrettable form in which this proposal appeared in the Bill. The fact that he has not gone all the way that I proposed in my Amendment, I take to be only a matter of time. I hope that this is an instalment, and, if not this year, I hope in a very short time it will be possible to raise this pension definitely to the age of 16 years. As it stood originally in the Bill, it was a proposal of what one might properly call an anti-educational character. Whereas it is felt on all sides that the age of 14 is too early to bring the education of a child to an end, this Bill would have stereotyped 14, at any rate, in the case of widows' children, and would have prevented them taking the advantage, even where the widow was prepared to make the necessary sacrifice to enable them to continue their schooling and fit themselves for the work of citizens. In this connection I would remind hon. Members that in many countries education goes on after 14 years, and so important is that felt in the United States that in the widows' pension proposals which prevail in a very large number of the States the pensions do go to widowed mothers for children, in most cases beyond the age of 14. It is only in nine States that the age of 14 is fixed. In seven States it goes to 15, in 19 States it goes up to 16, and in two States it actually goes up to 17 years. Therefore, had we retained the age of 14 in the Bill we should have been putting the children of this country in a much worse position
than children in the bulk of the States in America. In view of the fact that the Minister has met us to this extent, I do not propose to delay the House by going further into the matter. I think I have been very brief, and I thank the Minister for going as far as he has. I hope after the Bill becomes an Act, if it does, in a very short time it will be found possible to make a further extension to bring the proposal up to the full measure of the Amendment I put down.

Mr. HADEN GUEST: Is it quite certain that the words of the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment would cover education in any proper educational establishment full time, or is there some limitation?

Mr. BARR: I noticed that the words used by the Minister were in a day school, whereas the Amendment which he was in substance adopting speaks of any university college school or other educational establishment. I can see it would be most injurious if it were limited to day schools. Before we pass from the subject, we should have a general indication from the Minister that there is no serious limitation.

Mr. MAXTON: I want to ask if you are proposing to call the Amendment that stands in my name.

The CHAIRMAN: That will not be possible, because if the first of the two Amendments which the right hon. Gentleman is to move be carried, the words "of fourteen" will be left out, and the words "hereinafter specified" will be inserted. If the hon. Member wishes to develop a different point of view, he should do it now.

Mr. MAXTON: I want to press the Minister to go a little further than he has promised. I can recognise the surprising gratification of hon. Members who sit on these benches.

The CHAIRMAN: I think perhaps what I said was a little incomplete, because the positive words which have been put in by the right hon. Gentleman will come a great deal later. It would be out of order to allude to them now. At the same time it is the question of wording, and it will probably be better to deal with it when we come to the point in the next stage where the new Sub-section will be inserted.

Mr. MAXTON: I want to press the Minister to go further than he is proposing to go. He has taken a bit out of two Amendments. He is not prepared to include all children up to 16 years of age, only specially gifted ones—how selected I do not know. Before coming to this House I had considerable experience in teaching boys and girls of 12 and 13 years of age and I always found it a very difficult thing in the ordinary course of my professional duties to say which of these would be the brilliant one three or four years hence, which would make the best effort if allowed to go into the higher branches of education. I do not know how the Minister of Health is going to make the differentiation. I certainly do think that every widowed mother who desires to keep her children these extra two years at school should have the allowance to maintain them during those two years. What is the meaning of the words "specially gifted?"

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I used the words "specially gifted" not as being words to put into the Bill but merely as expressing what was in my mind in introducing this Amendment into the Clause of the Bill. What the Clause will actually provide will be that where the child is kept at school for two additional years, the allowance will be paid in respect of that child up to 16.

Mr. COVE: Is it a fact that the widow will not get anything?

Mr. JOHNSTON: May I ask whether or not the Minister attaches any importance to the phrase he used. I think the phrase he used was that these children would remain at a day school. Does he attach any importance to that or is that merely a phrase that meant very little in his mind. Will a child be deprived of its pension if, for example, it is going to any school other than a day school or a University?

Mr. MacDONALD: I think we should get some explanation. We should like to see the actual words, and I am sure the Minister can see the reasonableness of that request. He now proposes an Amendment "hereinafter specified." That leaves the whole question open to the substance of the Amendment because, on the next page, the question arises. Could we not have the words on the paper so that we may have
the chance of looking at them carefully? May I ask whether we can be given the substance of the Amendment proposed to be put in?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The place where the substantial part of the Amendment occurs is Clause 1, page 2, line 12. At the end the new Sub-section will be inserted. It is a definition of the age which has been previously alluded to as the age "hereinafter specified." "The specified age in relation to any child shall be the age of 14 or the age not exceeding 16 up to which the child remains in full time instruction in a day school." I think the only possible question that could arise about that are the words "day school."

Mr. MAXTON: I was in process of making a speech in support of the wider Amendment. I courteously gave way to the right hon. Gentleman, and then up got two hon. Members and the Leader of the Opposition.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member will not suffer for his generosity.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The phrase which I have used, "in a day school," is taken from an existing Act. It is the Act which gives benefits to dependants of unemployed men. It was passed in 1921. Last evening, in drawing up this Amendment, I thought it best to use these words, but I desire to ask my colleague the Minister of Labour what his experience is, and if it be proved that his experience shows another word would be better, I will put it in on the Report stage.

Mr. MAXTON: Having got this point made clear, I want to push the right hon. Gentleman to make the concession right up to college or university education. This principle I think is already recognised in Income Tax matters, and it indicates again a view indicated on more than one occasion, that there is to be one attitude towards the poorest class of the community and another towards the richer classes. Perhaps it is rather difficult for an English Member to conceive a widowed mother with a 10s. allowance for herself and an allowance of a few shillings for each of her children facing the prospect of sending her children to a university, but to Scottish and Welsh Members it is not so difficult. We have all had the experience of parents, and particularly widows, in that respect. In my school
experience I found that, for some reason or other, a widowed mother seemed to acquire a double dose of parental responsibility and a greater anxiety than the mother with a husband alive to do the best she could for her children.
I have had dozens of mothers coming to consult me as the teacher of their youngsters as to the possibility of putting a son or a daughter through college to make them a member of one or other of the learned professions. The calculations came down to a matter of sixpences and shillings and what the boy could earn in the summer holidays and in his leisure hours. That frame of mind, which is still existent in Scotland and England, is a valuable spirit which this nation should cherish and develop to its highest possible point. I do not know that there would be a huge number of mothers who would come forward and claim this concession, but supposing there were only a few hundreds altogether in the whole of Great Britain, it would be worth the while of the Minister of Health to encourage them as much as possible. I do not think any serious charge would be involved on the Exchequer, and I ask the Minister to give this matter further consideration land sympathy. I sometimes wonder what exactly is meant by this word sympathy, because I know that right hon. Gentlemen and hon. Members opposite use it quite honestly but with a different meaning than it has to us. I am inclined to think that sympathy with them means feeling for these people, whereas sympathy for us means feeling with these people. I want the right hon. Gentleman in the time he has at his disposal to consider this matter and give it his real sympathy and consideration and try to put himself in the place of the widowed mother who believes that her son or daughter has very great capacity.

Sir F. HALL: I am sure that the suggestions that have been put forward by hon. Members above the Gangway will receive the sympathetic consideration of the Minister of Health. I think he has been generous in saying that he is prepared to go a step further and take the age up from 14 to 16, provided the children are kept at a day school. I join with hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway in venturing the hope that the right hon. Gentleman will see his way
to ensure there is no distinction between one class and another, and that he will go one step further before the Report stage. I think such action would be received throughout the country with satisfaction.

Amendment agreed to.

Captain GARRO-JONES: I beg to move, in page 1, line 18, at the end, to insert the words
Provided that the allowances may be granted or continued beyond the age of sixteen in the case of young persons incapable through mental or physical infirmity of earning a living.
I move the Amendment, in the absence of my Friends and, in so far as the Amendment has come upon me unawares, I am fortunate, because it needs no words from me or anybody else to commend it to the Committee. I think if I merely move it and allow it to speak for itself, that will be as effective as anything I can say.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not think the hon. and gallant Member ought to press an Amendment of this kind. In the first place, there is no definition of what is meant by "young persons," and the allowance might therefore be carried on for an indefinite time. This question cannot be properly dealt with in this place, and it ought not to form any part of a contributory scheme of this kind.

Amendment negatived.

Further Amendment made: In page I, line 20, leave out the words "of fourteen," and insert instead thereof the words "hereinafter specified."—[Mr. Chamberlain.]

Mr. BUCHANAN: I beg to move, in page 1, line 21, to leave out the word "seven," and to insert instead thereof the word "twelve."
This Amendment, whatever may be our differences of opinion, will commend itself to a large number of Members in all parties. We ask that the rate shall be increased from 7s. 6d. to 12s. for children, and up to 12s. 6d. in the case of orphans. It will not need a very lengthy speech from me to convince the Committee of the necessity of doing that for orphan children. One has only to recall one's own personal experience to realise that 7s. 6d. is wholly inadequate
to feed and clothe a child, and to pay the other expenses necessary to keep it in decency and comfort. Earlier in the Debate, the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. N. Maclean) spoke of the amounts paid for keeping domestic animals. In the city of Glasgow, a part of which I represent, there is a home where they charge at least 6s. for taking in an animal. We think that a child is of much more value and requires a great deal more attention than a dog or a cat. Therefore, we say that the amount of the pension ought to be increased to the standard I have named.
It may be argued that there is a difference between the widows of soldiers and ex-soldiers and of men engaged in industry. Whatever may be said about the inequalities or otherwise of such widows, there is no difference in respect to the children. So far as we can insure it, the children of the future must be made good citizens. The Committee will not expect ordinary children to be brought up properly on a less sum than we are suggesting. That must be the opinion of many hon. Members on all sides of the Committee. It is a common occurrence for hon. Members before they come to this House to serve on local authorities, sometimes on a town or parish council, or board of guardians. In Govan we pay a larger sum and from the Poor Law to a person who keeps an orphan child than the amount which the Government proposes to give under the Bill. If that be the case, surely to goodness the Government ought not to be less generous than the Poor Law authority. In any case, is it extravagant to demand that 12s. 6d. shall be paid for keeping a child week in and week out. When we apportion the cost of the necessities of life, such as food, clothes and shelter, we shall all agree that if we are erring in this Amendment it is on the side of not demanding enough. I think a case could be made out for more than 12s. 6d., but we are meagre, are mild in our request, and we are sure that the Minister of Health, recognising that we have purposely made our demand mild in order not to go too far, will agree to 12s. 6d. as the minimum sum. As the right hon. Gentleman, with all of us, desires to perfect this Bill, we are sure he will accept the Amendment and so insure the more speedy passage of the Measure.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I cannot help thinking that the hon. Member who moved this Amendment did not quite appreciate what he was moving. I am confirmed in that view because he went on to substitute 12s. 6d. for the amount of 12s., which is really suggested in the Amendment. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh"!]

Mr. BUCHANAN: The right hon. Gentleman knows that the subsequent Amendment provides for the extra 6d. I was not in half the muddle that the right hon. Gentleman was in earlier to-night.

6.0 A.M.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It is only 6d. out, but it makes a difference. The figures in the Amendment which it is proposed to substitute for those in the Bill are those given in the war pensions allowances. I cannot adopt the standard of the war pensions allowances in the cases of orphan children when we have rejected it in the cases of children who are not orphans. The two things must go together. We have already settled this question and we cannot now unsettle it and go back on an entirely different scale.

Miss WILKINSON: Does not the right hon. Gentleman appreciate the fact that you are here paying for two things? You are providing for the amount to keep the child and you are paying some person, other than the widow, to look after it and bring it up. If these children are boarded out, they should be boarded out under adequate allowances so that a woman charged with their care will not feel that she is not being paid for her services. And there is the important principle that where the children are boarded out the woman who is doing the job—the mother's work—should be adequately paid so that it is possible to get a better type of person for the job. I think that is behind the party's desire to increase the amount.

Mr. LANSBURY: This is an important question and one which the Minister of Health ought to recognise. The scandals connected with the boarding out of children under the Poor Law are very well known to his Department and he knows the difficulty of getting decent homes on a cheap basis. A few years ago numbers of children were boarded out in this way and to-day, I
think I am right in saying, a large number of boards of guardians have abandoned the principle because of the great difficulty of getting people to take care of children, even if the money allowed by the Ministry of Health is paid. I put it to anybody: Is 12s. 6d. too much for food, clothes, and the bringing up of a boy or girl? The Minister says he must do the same for the children who are with their mothers. He ought to know that a board of guardians would give a mother less than a stranger. If the country were to say it would deal with these children by putting them into institutions, and provide foster parents and all the rest, the right hon. Gentleman knows it would cost 28s. or 30s. a week, because of the enormous overhead charges these institutions involve. When -you get them into institutions you can have almost complete supervision. When you board children out in the country it is very difficult. It is a hard thing to say, but you must pay for the kindness a child needs. I most earnestly ask the Minister not to dismiss this matter in an airy manner.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not know whether one gets more mellow as the morning advances, but I am disposed to try and go a little way more to meet hon. Members. Unfortunately, the hon. Member, as I have already pointed out, has placed on the Paper a form which identifies is with the war pension rates. I do recognise that there is a difference between the case of the orphan and the case of the children of a widow in this respect, that in the case of the widow the children are all presumably living together, whereas the orphans may be separated. I would be prepared to try and meet that by providing that, instead of differentiating between the eldest child and the other children, I would give the same amount to each child. I think the next Amendment would carry that out, and, if that Amendment is moved in place of this one, I would accept it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Major CRAWFURD: I beg to move, in page 1, line 22, to leave out from the word "for," to the end of the paragraph, and to insert instead thereof the words "each such child."
The right hon. Gentleman has announced that he will accept this Amendment.

Captain GARRO-JONES: We are thankful for this small concession, but it must not be thought we subscribe to the view that it is objectionable to identify pensions under this Bill with war pensions. The Attorney-General took advantage of a remark made earlier in the evening when dealing with this matter, and only his skill in Parliamentary language saved what he said from being offensive. I would like to know whether the Government can give a specific assurance that there is no intention of touching these war pensions. [Interruption.] It has a good deal to do with it. On the other side we find a marked reluctance to identify any of these things with war pensions. If any further concessions are made by the Minister, concessions which we shall all gratefully welcome, I hope they will not be given on the ground that they must not be identified with war pensions.

Amendment agreed to.

The CHAIRMAN: The next Amendment on the Paper in order is that standing in the name of the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Johnston).

Miss WILKINSON: Do I understand that the Amendment standing in my name and in the name of the hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Barr) in page 2, line 3, at the end, to insert the words
(c) to an unmarried woman, who has attained the age of fifty-five but has not attained the age of seventy a pension at the rate of twenty shillings per week (in this Act called an ' old age pension')
is not in order?

The CHAIRMAN: It is outside the scope of the Bill.

Miss WILKINSON: I do not dispute your ruling, but this Amendment, which deals with the case of unmarried women, raises a definite point. They are getting no benefit.

The CHAIRMAN: The Bill stipulates "widows, orphans and old age pensioners," and the Amendment does not fall within any of these categories.

Miss WILKINSON: May I point out that the Bill does not specify the age at
which old age pensions commence, and I suggest that this Amendment would come under that part of the title of the Bill.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member has not looked at the full Title of the Bill.

Mr. MacDONALD: May I ask how long it is proposed to go on to-night?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I think it would be convenient if the words were moved in, so that they can appear on the Paper.

HON. MEMBERS: Carry on!

Mr. MacDONALD: I do not want there to be any mistake about this. We are prepared to go on for hours yet. Everyone will agree that during the last hour or so the discussion has been very amicable. It has been the most business-like all-night sitting I have taken part in. I thought it would be much better for us to have a full discussion on these imperfect words before they go into the Bill, so that we can then have a better explanation later, and amend them on Report stage.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: My idea was to put these words in now and refer reconsideration of them to the Report stage. That would give me an opportunity of consulting the Minister of Labour, and getting further information which would then be at the disposal of the Committee. I shall not have time if we defer consideration until this afternoon.

Mr. LANSBURY: On a point of Order. May I ask what has happened to my Amendment—in page 2, line 3, at the end, to insert the words
(c) to a man or woman who has not attained the age of sixty-five and who has been declared under the provisions of the Unemployment Insurance Acts to have no reasonable prospect of obtaining employment a pension at the rate of twenty shillings per week (in this Act called an 'old age pension').

The CHAIRMAN: That is outside the scope of the Bill.

Mr. LANSBURY: Is it outside the scope of the Bill to bring in men and women who are unable to get insurable employment?

The CHAIRMAN: That is out of order. The age is fixed at 65.

Mr. JOHNSTON: I beg to move, in page 2, lines 7 and 8, to leave out the words
who has attained the age of sixty-five.
If I read the Clause correctly, it means that a, woman who has married a man a year younger than herself will not be able to get the old age pension at 65, but will have to wait until her husband also reaches that age. That seems to me to be a piece of incomprehensible cruelty, and I cannot understand why such a Clause is inserted in the Bill at all.

Miss WILKINSON: On this Amendment may I ask the Minister to consider the position of unmarried women who are discriminated against unfairly? There are textile workers who remain in that employment all their lives. It Has been laid down that if her husband dies, unless he is an insured man, she gets no benefit. Supposing a woman at the age of 35 marries a man of 25: it means that, although the Minister of Health has laid in down that the amount this woman is paying is such as to ensure her an old age pension at the age of 65 instead of 70, if she marries a man only five years younger than herself she does not get a penny even though she has paid the 2d. a week all her life. Simply because her husband is five years younger than herself, she does not get her pension until she is 70, which she would do in any case. The right hon. Member for Carmarthen (Sir A. Mond) has already said that a woman, before she becomes engaged, will have to see the card of her fiancé to discover whether he is an insured person. It now seems that she will have to demand his birth certificate in order to see that he is not five years younger than herself.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: This Clause deals with the right to what we call an old age pension, and it gives it in three different categories. First of all, it gives it to any insured man who reaches the age of 65. Secondly, it gives it to any insured woman who reaches the age of 65. Thirdly, it gives it, as a result of the man's insurance, to the uninsured wife of the insured man when she and he have reached the age of 65. That third category is a privilege, in a fashion, granted to the wife of the insured man, when he has reached 65 and when his wife has reached the same age, as a result of the contributions
which he and his employer and the State have made in order to provide that pension. The view that we take is that, inasmuch as this is a category of insurance in which it is the husband and not the wife who is the insured person, it is not unreasonable to say that until the husband reaches the age of 65 he shall continue to support his wife, and that when the husband reaches the age of 65, at which age he may well desire to retire and live on his pension, his wife, if she has reached the age of 65, shall have it equally with the husband. The object of this third category is to enable the husband who has reached the age of 65, and whose wife-has attained the same age, to acquire for his wife the pension of 10s. a week as well as the pension which he acquired for himself. It has nothing whatever to do with the case of the insured woman, who comes under a previous category and gets by her own insurance the old age pension when she reaches the age of 65, irrespective of the age of anybody else at all. With that explanation, I think, the Committee will see that the Government cannot possibly accept the Amendment, and that the provision which is made is not an unreasonable provision to make.

Miss WILKINSON: Suppose you have an insured woman of 45 who has been paying since she was 16 and marries a man five years younger than herself. She has been paying for 25 years, but she will still not get the pension when she reaches the age of 65.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The answer to that is quite obviously that, as she will be an uninsured women, she will get 'her pension when her husband reaches the age of 65, because she is getting it in right of her husband and not in right of any insurance of her own.

Miss WILKINSON: But we are having the continual assumption that, however many years a woman pays in while she is unmarried, all that money is lost when she marries. Surely, when a woman has paid in for many years, she ought to get some benefit.

Mr. BECKETT: I am sure the House will feel some measure of sympathy with those of us who have been trying hard all night to mellow the rather hard cynicism with which the right hon. Gentle-
man the Minister of Health conducted this Debate. We have received very kindly treatment from him for the past two hours, and now we are handed back to the mercy of the legal irony with which the Attorney-General has just treated us. Of all the strange things that have been said during this long night, I think the, Attorney-General's remark that this gentleman and his wife will retire at the age of 65 to live on their pensions should be preserved to posterity as an instance of the way in which wealthy members of a Conservative Government are totally removed from the realities of the life of the people. Here we have a very good opportunity for the Government to tell us whether this is an insurance scheme in which they intend to observe business methods, or whether it is not. We hear different things all night long. On one Amendment that we move we are told this is a voluntary and contributory pension arrangement, and we have to hear legal niceties. On the next Amendment exactly the opposite view is taken by the Government Benches. I think I am on safe ground if I suggest to the House that that is neither good government, good business, nor decent morality to draw subscriptions from women which they are forced to pay for years and years out of their meagre wages, and then, when they have reached over age, the Government take away from them not merely the means they may have by making provision for that age, but say, "Oh, no! This is no case. Your husband is an insured person, and all the money you put in goes into the bottomless pit of the Government Department." It is a most unfair and unbusinesslike suggestion that has been made. I hope the Minister of Health will not allow himself to shelter behind the legal subtleties of the Attorney-General

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I only want to appeal to the Minister to meet us on this matter. I quite understand the point raised by the Attorney-General, but I do suggest to the Minister this. Can he

not extend it to the case of the woman who has been insured for a considerable number of years. It may be up to the date of marriage, or longer than that. Can he not meet the point by putting some number of years; if a woman contributes a certain number of years, then she can come under this insurance pension though she reaches the age of 65 before that of her husband. I hope he will give consideration to this and see whether he cannot produce some Amendment on the Report stage which will enable him to meet that point.

Mr. THURTLE: I should be the last person in the world to attempt to drive a wedge between the Front Bench opposite and the back benches. It seems to me that we have heard a very legitimate grievance. We have heard all the Front Bench on this grievance, and apparently, so far as the Front Bench is concerned, we are to get no redress. I propose to direct an appeal to the back benches, where there has been profound silence in the course of this long night. But I am an optimist, and in spite of appearances to the contrary I believe there must be a certain amount of mental activity on those back benches. I do not think I have said anything which is not in accordance with the facts. But I think there must be thoughts stirring in the minds of hon. Members opposite on this particular issue that this is a grievance well established. I would like to know what the back benchers are thinking, and I invite them, if they have any views at all, any kindly feelings towards the lady who is generous enough to marry a man who is her junior—I should like to hear the views of the Noble Lady the Member for Sutton (Viscountess Astor) on this matter—I should like hon. Members to give them and to see whether they are going to be, for the first time in this long night, in revolt against the Front Bench.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 161; Noes, 76.

Division No. 230.]
AYES.
[6.38 a.m.


Albery, Irving James
Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart


Astor, Viscountess
Beamish, Captain T. P. H.
Bowyer, Capt. G. E W.


Balniel, Lord
Bethell, A.
Brass, Captain w.


Banks, Reginald Mitchell
Betterton, Henry B.
Briggs, J. Harold


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Briscoe, Richard George


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Hammersley, S. S.
Peto, Sasil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. H. I
Hanbury, C.
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Pielou, D. P.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C.(Berks, Newb'y)
Harland, A.
Price, Major C. W. M.


Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan
Hartington, Marquess of
Radford, E. A.


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Raine, W.


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Ramsden, E.


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Hawke, John Anthony
Rentoul, G. S.


Campbell, E. T.
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Ropner, Major L.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Henniker-Hughan, Vice-Adm. Sir A.
Rye, F. G.


Chapman, Sir S.
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Salmon, Major I.


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Hilton, Cecil
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)


Clayton, G. C.
Holt, Capt. H. P.
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W.)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Shepperson, E. W.


Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Cope, Major William
Hudson, R. S. (Cumb'l'nd, Whiteh'n)
Spender Clay, Colonel H.


Couper, J. B.
Hume, Sir G. H.
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Huntingfield, Lord
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden. E.)


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Hutchison, G. A. Clark (Midl'n & P'bl's)
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Jacob, A. E.
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Davidson, J. (Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.
King, Capt. Henry Douglas
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Davies, A. V. (Lancaster, Royton)
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Lamb, J. Q.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Dawson, Sir Philip
Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Templeton, W. P.


Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Lumley. L. R.
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Drewe, C.
Lynn, Sir R. J.
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Eden, Captain Anthony
MacAndrew, Charles Glen
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Edmondson, Major A. J.
McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Elliot, Captain Walter E.
Macintyre, I.
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
McLean, Major A.
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L.(Kingston-on-Hull)


Everard, W. Lindsay
Macmillan, Captain H.
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Malone, Major P. B.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Fielden, E. B.
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


Foxcroft. Captain C. T.
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Wells, S. R.


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Moore, Sir Newton J.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon. Torquay)


Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Gee, Captain R.
Nall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph
Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Nelson, Sir Frank
Wise, Sir Fredric


Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Neville, R. J.
Womersley, W. J.


Goff, Sir Park
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Wragg, Herbert


Greene, W. P. Crawford
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)



Gunston, Captain D. W.
Oakley, T.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Mr. F. C. Thomson and Captain Margesson.


Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Perring, William George



NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Groves, T.
Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)


Ammon, Charles George
Grundy, T. W.
Montague, Frederick


Barnes. A.
Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark, N.)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)


Barr, J.
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Murnin, H.


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Hardie, George D.
Oliver, George Harold


Broad, F. A.
Hayday, Arthur
Palin, John Henry


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)


Buchanan, G.
Hirst, G. H.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Charleton, H. C.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Potts, John S.


Cluse, W. S.
Hudson. J. H. (Huddersfield)
Scurr, John


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Compton, Joseph
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Cove, W. G.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Sitch, Charles H.


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Crawfurd, H. E.
Kelly, W. T.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Dalton, Hugh
Kennedy, T.
Stamford, T. W.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Kirkwood, D.
Stephen, Campbell


Day, Colonel Harry
Lansbury, George
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Dennison, R.
Lawson, John James
Thurtle, E,


Edwards, C. (Monmeuth, Bedwellty)
Lowth, T.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Fenby, T. D.
Lunn, William
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Welsh, J. C.


Gibbins, Joseph
Mackinder, W.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
MacLaren, Andrew
Windsor, Walter


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)



Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Maxton, James
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. Hayes and Mr. Warne.

Further Amendment made: In page 2, line 12, at end insert
(2) The specified age in relation to any child shall be the age of fourteen or the age, not exceeding sixteen, up to which the
child remains under full-time instruction in a day school."—[Mr. Chamberlain.]

Major CRAWFURD: I beg to move, in page 2, line 15, at the end to insert the words
Provided that insured persons employed in agricultural occupations as defined for the purposes of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1920, shall not be liable to such contributions, nor shall the employer be required to make such contributions on their behalf.
The effect of the Amendment will be that persons in agricultural employment will receive benefits without paying contributions. In many rural districts wages are very low and all the arguments that have been urged against this Bill is, so far as it is a burden on industry, on employers and employed, have special weight when directed to agriculture.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am sure that the Committee will not expect me to accept this Amendment, because if once one began to make concessions of this kind in respect of a particular industry, obviously, the door must at once be opened to similar treatment for other industries. Whatever the difficulties of the agricultural industry may be, the hon. and gallant Member may be assured that they are no more serious than those of the coal mining or engineering industries. The total burden upon the agricultural industry for insurance services is considerably less than upon those industries which are more hardly pressed. As regards the actual cost of this proposal, it would mean an additional charge of £300.000 in the first year. I am, therefore, unable to accept the Amendment.

Captain GARRO-JONES: This is an instance of the great disadvantage of discussing a Bill without knowing anything about it. I have here a copy of a newspaper which, a few hours ago, would have been described as "to-morrow's Daily Mail," but which is now "to-day's Daily Mail." There I read the following statement:
It is understood that a cut of 3d. or 2d. in the case of employers "—

HON. MEMBERS: Order!

Captain GARRO-JONES: I hope hon. Members have as much confidence in the Deputy-Chairman as I have. He will pull me up if I am out of Order—
and 2d. or 1d. in the case of workers has been made in the rates of contribution for Unemployment Insurance.
The right hon. Gentleman has given a computation of how much it would cost if this Amendment were accepted. I am trying to find out whether his basis was the new rates or the old rates. This gives me the opportunity of drawing the attention of the Committee to the fact that here is a newspaper which has received advance information on a subject which has been relevant to the whole of our discussion to-night. [Interruption.] I think hon. Members opposite will agree with me that it is a gross abuse of the privileges of the House of Commons—[Interruption]—that this information should have been given to a newspaper and denied to the House of Commons. I am going to ask the Minister of Health an explicit question. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will treat what is a serious matter in a serious way. Has he authorised the issue of this information to the newspaper press in advance of giving it to the House of Commons?
There is one other point. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!" and Interruption.] If any Member of the Front Bench gets up and boasts how ready they are to sit up all night hon. Members cheer for about five minutes, but they display signs of restlessness if anyone else wishes to take up two minutes to refer to a very important matter.

Major Sir RICHARD BARNETT: On a point of Order. [Interruption.] Is it in Order for an hon. Member to persist in reading a newspaper in the House of Commons?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I understand that the hon. and gallant Member is quoting from the newspaper.

Captain GARRO-JONES: The hon. and gallant Member who has made his point of Order got up just before, and then resumed his seat. I was. afraid we were going to lose an interesting and most valuable contribution to the Debate from him, but my fear was not justified by his subsequent remarks. In this newspaper we are actually told where the money is to come from. It says:
No Treasury grant is to be made to restore the solvency of the Unemployment Insurance Fund. The present deficit, and
any increase which may at first result from the new reductions in contributions, will be allowed to continue, in the hope that during the next few years there will be a reduction in the number of persons on the live register.
I detect a sinister intention in that case. If ever the outlook for the unemployed was discouraging and black it is now. I am unable to understand on what ground the Minister based his expectations of being able to reduce the amount spent on unemployment insurance, unless it is associated with some of the plans which one or two of the hon. Members on the Front Bench have in mind—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. and gallant Member is now going beyond the scope of the Amendment.

Captain GARRO-JONES: I want to repeat my statement before I sit down, because I hope to have an answer. Has the Minister or any Member of the Government authorised the giving out to the Press of information which was relevant to the Debate to-night and which has been withheld from us for no reason whatever?

7.0 A.M.

Sir G. COLLINS: My right hon. and hon. Friends who are associated with me pressed the Government, 12 hours ago, strongly on the very point which has been put to the Committee by the hon. and gallant Member who has just sat down. In the course of his speech the hon. and gallant Member told the Committee that certain organs outside this House had previous information— whether it is accurate or not, we do not know at the moment—which has been withheld from the knowledge of Members of the Committee. I hope the Minister will give us some information on the point which has been raised. If there is any Amendment which the Government might concede it is this one. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, on the Finance Bill, gave a large concession to agricultural owners. That was the one concession during the progress of that Bill. The concession we are asking for is not so much one to agricultural landlords as to farmers and agricultural labourers. The Minister of Health stated in reply that the concession would cost only £300,000, and it will be in the recollection of Members of the House, who sat through the Finance
Debates, that the concession of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to agricultural landlords amounted to £500,000.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I said £300,000 in the first year.

Sir G. COLLINS: I am well aware of that. What I quoted was for the first year, and £1,800,000 after. The Chancellor of the Exchequer's concession of £500,000 was to a limited number of individuals. The concession we are asking for is for a large number. The concession of £500,000 to the agricultural landlords is really very much larger relatively. This £1,800,000 for which we are asking, is to be given to farmers and agricultural labourers, and hon. Members opposite have always the welfare of agriculture at heart. We are going to press this Amendment to a Division. We have in this industry, more than in any other industry, an extreme difficulty in passing on to the consumer the increased burdens which the State is placing on this industry. This industry has to compete with the industry in all parts of the world, and agriculture should receive some special consideration from the Government, more especially, as I have pointed out, as they have already by their policy given very special consideration to the agricultural landlord.

Mr. MACLEAN: Before the question is put, is the Minister of Health to reply to the very important question put to him as to whether information which ought first to have been given to the House was given first to the Press?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No such authorisation has been given. It appears to me quite obvious from what was read out, that the so-called information was no information at all. It was of the vaguest possible kind, contained two or three alternatives, and was only what is sometimes called an intelligent anticipation.

Mr. MACLEAN: Is it not the policy of the Government to give vague information?

Captain GARRO-JONES: It states explicit facts; that is perfectly obvious. I have some small journalistic experience, and I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that the information would not have been put in that form unless
it was authoritatively conveyed to the paper. I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he can deny that the statements there contained are accurate?

Question put, "That those words be there added,"

The Committee divided: Ayes, 74; Noes, 157.

Division No. 231.]
AYES.
[7.5 a.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Murnin, H.


Ammon, Charles George
Hardie, George D.
Oliver, George Harold


Barnes, A.
Mayday, Arthur
Palin, John Henry


Barr, J.
Hayes, John Henry
Parkinson. John Allen (Wigan)


Broad, F. A.
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Hirst, G. H.
Potts, John S.


Buchanan, G.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Scurr, John


Charleton, H. C.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Cluse, W. S.
John, William (Rhondda. West)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Compton, Joseph
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Sitch, Charles H.


Cove, W. G.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Dalton, Hugh
Kelly, W. T.
Stamford, T. W.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Kennedy, T.
Stephen, Camphell


Day, Colonel Harry
Kirkwood, D.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Dennison, R.
Lansbury, George
Thurtle, E.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Lawson, John James
Warne, G. H.


Fenby, T. D.
Lowth, T.
Watson. W. M. (Dunfermline)


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Lunn, William
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Gibbins, Joseph
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Welsh, J. C.


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Mackinder, W.
Wilkinson. Ellen C.


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
MacLaren, Andrew
Windsor, Walter


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)



Groves, T.
Maxton, James
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:—


Grundy, T. W.
Montague, Frederick
Sir Godfrey Collins and Major Crawfurd.


Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark, N.)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)



NOES.


Albery, Irving James
Eden, Captain Anthony
Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman


Astor, Viscountess
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Lumley, L. R.


Balniel, Lord
Elliot, Captain Walter E.
Lynn, Sir R. J.


Banks, Reginald Mitchell
Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
MacAndrew, Charles Glen


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Everard, W. Lindsay
McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Macintyre, I.


Beamish, Captain T. P. H.
Fielden, E. B.
McLean, Major A.


Bethell, A.
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Macmillan, Captain H.


Betterton, Henry B.
Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Malone. Major P. B.


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)


Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart
Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. D. M.


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Gee Captain R.
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)


Brass, Captain W.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Moore, Sir Newton J.


Briggs, J. Harold
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. S.


Briscoe, Richard George
Goff, Sir Park
Nail. Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Greene W. P. Crawford
Nelson, Sir Frank


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Neville, R. J.


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Hall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir F. (Dulwich)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Hammersley, S. S.
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Hanbury, C.
Oakley, T.


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Harland, A.
Perring, William George


Campbell, E. T.
Hartington, Marquess of
Peto, Basil E. (Devon. Barnstaple)


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Pielou, D. P.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Hawke, John Anthony
Radford, E. A.


Chapman, Sir S.
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Raine, W.


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)
Ramsden, E.


Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Henniker-Hughan, Vice-Adm. Sir A.
Rentoul, G. S.


Clayton, G. C.
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hilton, Cecil
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Ropner, Major L.


Cope, Major William
Holt Capt H. P.
Rye, F. G.


Couper, J. B.
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Salmon, Major I.


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Hope, Sir Harry (Fortar)
Samuel. A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Hudson, R. S. (Cumb'l'nd, Whiteh'n)
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W. R., Sowerby


Davidson, J. (Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)
Hume, Sir G. H.
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, w.)


Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.
Huntingfield, Lord
Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)


Davies, A. V. (Lancaster, Royton)
Hutchison, G. A. Clark (Midl'n & P'bl's)
Shepperson, E. W.


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset. Yeovil)
Jacob, A. E.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Dawson, Sir Philip
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Spender Clay, Colonel H


Dean, Arthur Wellesley
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Drewe, C.
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Stanley. Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E)


Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Steel, Major Samuel Strang
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)


Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.
Wallace, Captain D. E.
Wise, Sir Fredric


Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L.(Kingston-on-Hull)
Womersley, W. J.


Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.
Wragg, Herbert


Sugden, Sir Wilfrid
Warrender, Sir Victor



Templeton, W. P.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)
Major Hennessy and Captain Margesson.


Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
Wells, S. R.



Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)



Question put, and agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I beg to move "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
I think we have arrived at a moment when we might be content with the result of our labours.

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after half-past Eleven of the Clock upon Tuesday evening, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Sixteen Minutes after Seven a.m., Wednesday, 1st July.